VTK license OK? (was: VTK anyone?)

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Thursday 28 December 2006 11:27, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 07:28:48AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 07:38:50PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 10:23:19AM +0200, Gianluca Sforna wrote:
> > > > On 7/12/06, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net> wrote:
> > > > >On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 11:24:19PM +0200, Gianluca Sforna wrote:
> > > > >Well, I've already put quite some time into vtk packaging with the
> > > > >intend to push it to extras when it's done and I also need it for my
> > > > >(current) day job, so I'm interested in continuing maintenance.
> >
> > FWIW the packages have been submitted for some time now and have been
> > semi-reviewed. Anyone who wants to finish it off:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199406
>
> I'm trying to get this forward, there are two issues, one involved
> patents and is handled separately and the other involves the
> license. The VTK license is neither submitted to OSI or FSF for
> approving them in one way or another.
>
> There was a recent discussion here whether the wording about "fedora
> *clarifies* an open source license with these three groups" means a
> strict limit to these three or a hint about what fedora regards as
> open source licenses. I can't say anything about the wording, the
> important part is the intention and the decision that was made back
> then.
>
> Anyway here is the license by VTK. Would it be open source for fedora?
> Who would decide on this, fesco?
FSF is the place to have it decided upon 

-- 
 ,-._|\    Dennis Gilmore, RHCE
/Aussie\   Proud Australian
\_.--._/   | Aurora | Fedora |
      v