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

Re: Sponsor needed for ACE+TAO package



On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 16:58 -0800, Ken Sedgwick wrote:

>Source RPM:
>http://dist.bonsai.com/ken/ace_tao_rpm/5.4.4-2.SRC/ace+tao-5.4.4-2.src.rpm

Could you please not use "+" characters in the rpm filenames? Its a
minor complaint, to be sure, but there's no reason to have it. "acetao"
or "ace-tao" is preferred.

>There are no legal issues:
>http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE-copying.html

The ACE License is not an OSI approved license. The informal rule (soon
to be a formal rule) is that all packages in Fedora Extras should have
an OSI approved license.

Now, IANAL, but I don't see anything in the license that would prevent
it from receiving OSI approval. Its just so that we have our collective
backside covered, and so that we don't have to examine all sorts of odd
legal licenses. If we let this in, it sets bad precedent.

Based on that, I think I'll have to NAK this request. Please submit the
ACE license to OSI for approval
(http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval) or
approach the maintainer about dual licensing the source with an OSI
approved license.

~spot
---
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!


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