https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264510 --- Comment #5 from Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #3) > Thanks for the pointer. I remember Fedora discussed it but I did not know > there was an conclusion. Though hiding the new license (external 2000 RSA > statement) from users seems to me odd, I will respect it. I admit there is something unsatisfactory about this - I believe there was a recent gitlab (fedora-license-data, or maybe fedora-legal-docs) issue where I commented on that. But the basic idea here is we are continuing a very old Fedora tradition of pretending the RSA-MD license doesn't really exist. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264510 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202264510%23c5 -- _______________________________________________ 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
