(sl) Yet again: Current package status updated

[Patrice Dumas]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 05:30:12PM +1100, Marc Bradshaw wrote:
> Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 10:42:30AM +1100, Marc Bradshaw wrote:
> >   
> >>> packages_[AT]_marcbradshaw.co.uk | doc | Not found in nonfree-devel
> >>> packages_[AT]_marcbradshaw.co.uk | doc | Not found in nonfree-F-8
> >>> packages_[AT]_marcbradshaw.co.uk | doc | Not found in nonfree-F-9
> >>> packages_[AT]_marcbradshaw.co.uk | sl | Not found in nonfree-devel
> >>> packages_[AT]_marcbradshaw.co.uk | sl | Not found in nonfree-F-8
> >>> packages_[AT]_marcbradshaw.co.uk | sl | Not found in nonfree-F-9
> >>>       
> >
> > Isn' tthere a free implementation of sl that would be suitable for
> > fedora? I know that it was in debian and it is in gentoo.
> >
> > --
> > Pat
> >   
> 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.
> That being said, I am happy to discuss it. :)

Indeed I didn't found any license, and I sent a mail to the author. In
the mean time, unless I am wrong it is in fact illegal for rpmfusion to
distribute sl since a copyright and no license means no right to
redistribute. However it is very very unlikely that it is the author
intent, so better wait for a reply.

--
Pat