https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867290 Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- > Thanks, Andy, sorry for the long pause - the license was identified and cleared by Fedora Legal in August as: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Henry_Spencer_Reg-Ex_Library_License > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/6P6LWUEGQYWPOVM5MA5D3VZLKIEWZURJ/#6P6LWUEGQYWPOVM5MA5D3VZLKIEWZURJ I had a look at the links, compared the license texts and indeed it's 1:1 the Henry Spencer license. I'm glad we have a license tag for this, but it's a shame the MIT or BSD license was not used instead. > [1] particularly since it is unlikely we can ever ship nix properly in Fedora, > unless we do what Debian does and ship the binary without setting up the system /nix directories. Yes, I don't think this would work and/or be useful. "editline" definitely will be, though! The rest looks good now. Package approved! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
