hplip: hp-toolbox advertising?

[Rahul Sundaram]

Patrice Dumas wrote:

> In my opinion this is for fedora-devel, since it impacts on reviews.
> I have repeatedly annoyed submitters by saying that a src.rpm as a whole
> was a derived work of each of the tarballs. Now I stand corrected.
> Similarly I have argued that all the files in a tarball needed to be
> GPL compatible if there was a single GPL file in the tarball, this seems
> to be wrong too, if the 2 files don't have any relationship at link time
> and no runtime inclusion (say a C program and a script).

I thought you claimed this is one of the reviews and were corrected by 
someone else. Make sure you clarify any legal issues in 
fedora-maintainers list before enforcing it on reviewers. At any rate it 
looks we need a FAQ on common legal issues. If you have a list I can 
write it up and run it via Red Hat Legal.

Rahul