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=526651 --- Comment #13 from Andrea Musuruane <[email protected]> 2009-10-05 09:59:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) > Yes, that's true. My point is "different parts with different licences, > *including* MIT and GPL". Including MIT and GPL means there are others. As > long > as we dont know *what* licenses the others are, it's a no-go from my > understanding. Ops... sorry for my misunderstanding. > Upstream could be bothered to find out. On the plus side would be that it's > included in Debian. But i have no idea what "debianized" means. He could ask > the Debian developer to find out. +1. I agree that asking Debian package maintainer is the way to go. Debian is usually very careful about license issues. PS "Debianized" just means that someone has make a Debian .deb 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 [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
