Octave-forge and legal issues

[Greg DeKoenigsberg]

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
>