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


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480887





--- Comment #6 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fed...@gmail.com>  2009-02-07 
20:17:03 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> First of all:
> 
> Would you explain why the license term in
> licenseMusicXML.html are related to this application?
> 
> I fear that the clause
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> This
> Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of California and the
> intellectual property laws of the United States of America.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> renders this license non-free.


I am not sure if we should include this license file in the package. As far as
I understood this license applies to certain MusicXML document files. No such
files are distributed by upstream tarball. The only relation between this
license and kguitar is: kguitar is capable of handling MusicXML files. In
Fedora, we have also other applications that can handle these MusicXML files.
Tuxguitar and hydrogen are two examples that I can think of (they both do not
distribute MusicXML document files.).

Should I take this file off the package?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to