https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138353 --- Comment #15 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- >> a) Maybe a comment is needed in the spec file that the patents are no longer enforced? > I don't think it make sense to document the past ;) > I also think there is a bug confusion between patent and license on this algo > and "patent" are not allowed in Fedora > But if you think this is a blocker I can add something The file LICENSE-OCB.md is packaged, but based on explanation here and on GitHub, the correct situation is that that particular block encryption algorithm is no longer patented, so the information in LICENSE-OCB.md is inaccurate. Upstream will probably change something in how this is documented. It is not a blocker, but some comment may remind one to do an appropriate update on the next release. Probably the file should be named PREVIOUS-PATENT-OCB.md rather than LICENSE-OCB.md, but unclear what the upstream project will do. >> d) Should obsoletes thunderbird-librnp-rnp be indicated? > Not needed (both can be installed) > Rather to be obsoleted by thinderbird if they choice to use it Ok. Great it does not conflict. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138353 _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
