[Bug 166254] Review Request: perl-Imager

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 8/19/05, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> wrote:
> IMHO (IANAL), this is a non-issue and the guidelines should be changed
> accordingly.

Are you the only person to hold this opinion or is there recent list
discussion you can point me to that suggests there is a consensous
view that this particular review guideline requirement needs adjusting
or a less strict interpretation when a license is implied by reference
to another package's license?  I'm not a lawyer either so until the
guideline language is weakened to suggest there is some leeway I'm
going to lean on the provided guideline language which says its
required.  But please if you feel strongly about this, perhaps you can
discuss this potential change in the current guidelines in the
fedora-packaging list and get this requirement stricken.

-jef