[Fwd: License issue with iText and releated packages]

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:09:05PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:40 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:34 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > Christopher Aillon (caillon at redhat.com) said: 
> > > > I have a special license issue with iText and related packages like 
> > > > pdftk, which I want to discuss.
> > > > 
> > > > For further information please look a BZ #236310, BZ #245222, BZ #236309
> > > > 
> > > > You should be aware, that the plain iText package offers in Fedora have 
> > > > the same issue like
> > > > the packages with bundled iText implementations.
> > > 
> > > Nuke them all.
> > > 
> > 
> > +1
> > 
> > I'm glad it got caught, though.
> > 
> > Kudos to Andrew Overholt and Kevin Kofler for finding these.
> 
> Given this:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236309#c3
> 
> ...is there any merit in FPC asking package maintainers to go through
> their Java-including packages looking for similar issues?  Or even just
> having FPC issue a statement reiterating the need for maintainers to
> check the code they're entering into the repos?

Well, the FPC is supposed to do the clean-room design for guidelines
and not police the packages, or put in different words, the FPC
discusses the framework and the day to day packaging issues (enforcing
guidelines, punishing guideline outlaws, deciding on exceptions to
guidelines) are still within fesco proper.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20070622/2e8d31e5/attachment.bin