Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:43:00 -0500 (CDT), Rex Dieter
<rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
>
>Note that this is intended for Extras, *not* Core. By "Fedora", if you
>meant "Fedora Core", then I'd agree with you 100%.
I think you make too fine a distinction between Core and Extras,
especially in this case, where the licensing issue directly impacts
the ability of a package maintainer to do the right thing when it
...
I think the best way to look at Fedora Extras as an extention of
Core
not as something distinctly different moving forward. Extras is not
and will not be a dumping ground for unmaintainable packages.
I respectfully disagree a bit here. I have no problem as package
maintainer waiting for bugs to be fixed upstream, and that this waiting
does not make the package "unmaintainable".
OTOH, I guess it all boils down to fedora.redhat.com's definition of
"open source", as referred to in point 2 on:
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html
If pine's license doesn't meet this definition, then I would have to
concede that pine has no place in in Fedora.
-- Rex