[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: xmlformat licensing

Excuse the reply to myself, just wanted to clarify something:

On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 10:10 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> Because the REX software, and thus xmlformat, clearly meet all the
> requirements of the open source definition, we should be able to use it
> in our toolchain without incurring any difficulty.  (REX probably also
> meets the definition of "free software," although it is not copylefted
> and thus does not share the same distinction as GPL software.)  I'll
> prepare an RPM of this package and see about getting it into Fedora
> Extras.  In the meantime, we can keep testing and evaluating other
> methods of XML normalization.  So far, xmlformat does the best job that
> I've seen, but I'm sure there must be other tools out there.

An RPM is probably overkill for this tool.  It's "just" (!) a Perl
script, so it would just as easily sit in the docs-common/scripts/
folder, along with a configuration file setting FDP standards for
normalization.  Alternately, someone with more Perl-fu could check the
script for security and then try for FE.  I think that doing so means
the maintainer is making some representations about security which I'm
not qualified to do... so you could call this the "prudent wimp-out"
factor. :-)

Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]