(sl) Yet again: Current package status updated

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

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