[Bug 554101] Review Request: surf - Simple web browser

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554101

--- Comment #19 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2010-01-25 12:58:25 EST ---
Just to make sure this is clear through any language barriers, in the following
statement from the guidelines:

"In the second case, where there is no known package to conflict with at this
time, it is up to the packager to make a decision."

the word "known" is a general thing.  It doesn't imply that it's OK if you
simply offhand don't know that there are other pieces of software with
conflicting names.  When you see a four letter package name with a rather
common usage in English, you should at least, you know, spend a minute or two
over at Google.  

And simply making up your own rules, like "first come, first served" or your
"16 years of incompatible licensing disqualifies it for the name" isn't how
it's done.  Build consensus, ask FESCo.  It's supposed to be a community, not
you doing whatever you feel like doing.  It may be that you are correct, and
since surf can't be included in our distribution that there's no point in
working around it.  It may also be that nobody bothered to ask the surf author
to relicense his code.

-- 
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.