--- Comment #8 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com> 2009-02-02 18:30:22 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
> Thanks kwizart, but could you address these issues that I pointed as well?
> Without this one, I don't think it is appropriate to distribute mac in the
> first place:
> > * I'm attaching the email I received from the author. We should probably
If we think the redistribution is a problem, then We will have to wait for the
license to be added to the source package itsef. As having the text that allow
the redistribution not taken from the source package is completely irrelevant
(specially as the mail comes from an untrusted source not even gpg signed).
Here are some example of package that was waiting for such addition, even if
the license was attached to the bugzilla.
This was the case in the Ralink firmware reviews here:
Sorry, there is some miscommunication here. I still don't understand
what you need me to do with these firmware packages. I can't do
anything with them even if I want to, because I'm not their owner.
Btw, I sent an email to the MAC author and asked him to include some
text regarding redistribution of MAC.
If you have found any package that doesn't have the text to allow
redistribution added to the source package itself, please warn FE-LEGAL as this
package shouldn't have been added to the repository.
> > in %doc's of all packages.
> Please remove this "fake" license:
> > * Do we need to ship the COPYING file? Please check its content.
Why Not ? What is explained here is that License was not LGPL despite written
as such in the day it was provided from sourceforge. It explains something very
important, there was never a LGPL version of this mac source code.
Does the end user need to know this? This is more relevant for developers.
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.