Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-12 15:12 EST ------- (In reply to comment #81) > I don't believe we should package /etc/hylafax/faxcover_example_sgi.ps. It contains the old SGI name and logo and I'm pretty certain we shouldn't be sticking it in /etc whenever someone installs this software. I'm not even sure we have the legal right to distribute it, which is reason one for blocking FE-Legal. Indeed, this falls a little outside the realm of fair use. Please get rid of it. > I'm going to have to get expert assistance with the License: tag; the license given in the COPYRIGHT file is actually identical to the libtiff license, which gets its own "libtiff" license tag, but the regex code is clearly the bad "BSD+Advertising" clause which is GPL-incompatible and thus causes issues. Reason two that I'm blocking FE-Legal for guidance. There's no incompatibility there, but please use: License: libtiff and BSD with advertising. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review