Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747659 --- Comment #4 from Andy Grimm <agrimm@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-12-09 19:06:08 EST --- Oh, you are correct on the license. At first glance, it does resemble 4-clause BSD ... but it has 6 clauses, of course, and is essentially a clone of Apache Software License 1.0 with "Proxool" substituted for "Apache". I have sent an email to the maintainer. As it stands, the proper license for the package should literally be "Proxool License", but I'm going to hope that he comes back with the other authors and a decision to adopt a less restrictive license (like ASL 2.0 or revised BSD). Does a license like this require approval from legal, or is it sufficient to diff it against ASL 1.0 and say "these are the same"? If it does not require separate approval, I'll just change the LICENSE line and finish up the review, and if/when the maintainer updates the license upstream, I can update the package. If it has to go through a process to be added to the license list, though, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review