[Bug 193889] Review Request: ht2html - The www.python.org Web site generator

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: ht2html - The www.python.org Web site generator


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193889





------- Additional Comments From ifoox at redhat.com  2006-06-26 13:41 EST -------
New files:
http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/ht2html-2.0-1.src.rpm
http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/ht2html.spec

(In reply to comment #4)
> Non-Numeric Version in Release

I fixed this, changing the release to simply 1.

> 
> > There seems to be no mention of licensing in the software itself, but I found
> > mention of  in the sourceforge net. However, rpmlint tells me that both 'Python
> > License' and 'Python License (CNRI Python License)' are invalid. Is there a
> cannonical way to call this license?
> 
> rpmlint can be a bit confusing; in this case, the valid licenses accepted are
> overridden by a Fedora-specific file /usr/share/rpmlint/config.  The string to
> use is "Python Software Foundation License".  However, honestly with absolutely
> no license mentioned in the source, you really do need to contact upstream and
> get some sort of statement.  When you get that, include the correspondence in
> the package.  (In a perfect world they'd make a new release which includes a
> license statement, but this package is pretty old so I doubt that would happen.)

On friday the mailing list archives on sourceforge were unavailable. Today I
found a message [1] to the ML from the main author of ht2html, stating that it
is licensed under the PSF license. So I chaned the license to Python Software
Foundation License".

[1] - http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=1785154&forum_id=8327

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.