Octave-forge and legal issues
Greg DeKoenigsberg
gdk at redhat.com
Mon Apr 25 16:19:22 UTC 2005
I can guarantee you that the answer to 1. is very likely to be "no", fwiw.
--g
_____________________ ____________________________________________
Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have
Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the
Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the
] [ dumb. --mcluhan
Red Hat Summit ] [
New Orleans ] [ Learn. Network. Experience Open Source.
June 1/2/3 2005 ] [ (And Make Your Boss Pay For It.)
[ http://www.redhat.com/promo/summit/
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Quentin Spencer wrote:
> I have resolved most of the problems with octave-forge this package
> except one, and I don't know how best to proceed. Someone discovered
> something in the source tree that I had forgotten about: there is a
> nonfree source tree containing a few functions whose license prohibit
> commercial redistribution. The nonfree tree is not built into the
> resulting RPM, but the source would remain in the source tarball. I see
> the following options:
>
> 1. Ask the legal department if this is allowed and can stay as it is.
> 2. Create a modified source tarball with the offending code removed.
> This would be easy, but the source wouldn't match the upstream source.
> 3. Get the upstream maintainer to remove the offending source code (this
> has been discussed and he has expressed a willingness to do that, but I
> don't know how soon the next release will be, the current one is 6
> months old).
>
> Right now, I'd like to go with option 2 because it's something I can do
> without waiting for anyone else. My question is, does this break any
> established rules or preferred ways of doing things?
>
> regards,
> Quentin
>
> --
> fedora-extras-list mailing list
> fedora-extras-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
>
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list