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=619395
--- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> 2010-08-04 15:49:12
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #1)
> First of all would you clarify the following?
>
> ./data/dictionary/README.txt
> Would you check under what license the dictionaries in mozc are
> actually licensed?
Sure. will check it with upstream though, I don't see any issues combining
ipadic's license with BSD.
Yes, the combination of BSD and mecab-ipadic is okay, I just want to
make it clarified what license mozc's license is under.
> ./third_party/rx/v1_0rc2/README
> - This is under ASL 2.0.
> ! By the way, there are two third-party products included in mozc
> tarball (gyp, rx). Generally using bundled libraries is discouraged
> on Fedora and it is recommended to seperate such bundled libraries
>
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_...
> Would you create seperated review request for these (if these
> are really needed)?
I've submitted a package review for gyp though, there are no upstream for rx
anymore. apparently it may be not supposed to be shipped live for library and a
trivial code though, can't we just have a comment about the license for rx in
the spec file?
gyp taken. I guess rx can be shipped in current style (however the license
tag of mozc needs fixing, after clarifying dictionary's license).
--
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.