Re: (sl) Yet again: Current package status updated
On 14.10.2008 11:21, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 05:30:12PM +1100, Marc Bradshaw wrote:
>>
> The packaged version uses the same upstream as the debian package. The
> deb copyrights file states "Everyone is permitted to do anything on this
> program including copying, modifying, and improving, unless you try to
> pretend that you wrote it. i.e., the above copyright notice has to
> appear in all copies. THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ANY RESPONSIBILITY WITH
> REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE." however, I was unable to find a similar
> statement in the upstream source or associated website. Although from
> the context it is clear that it is distributable without a clear
> statement of the licence under which the program is distributed and
> after consultation with dribble lead Ian, we decided the package was
> more suited to dribble than to fedora.
The author answered that debian license is right, I have put the mail
at > http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/sl-license-mail.txt
So this is definitely for fedora.
k, so how important do we consider sl? And how fast can the review be
done in Fedora?
Or, IOW: Is the consensus then to not import the package to RPM Fusion,
even if that means that users then have no update/install source until
it's reviewed, imported and build in Fedora?
Cu
knurd