Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: ht2html - The
www.python.org Web site generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193889
------- Additional Comments From ifoox(a)redhat.com 2006-06-26 13:41 EST -------
New files:
http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/ht2html-2.0-1.src.rpm
http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/ht2html.spec
(In reply to comment #4)
Non-Numeric Version in Release
I fixed this, changing the release to simply 1.
> There seems to be no mention of licensing in the software itself, but I found
> mention of in the sourceforge net. However, rpmlint tells me that both 'Python
> License' and 'Python License (CNRI Python License)' are invalid. Is
there a
cannonical way to call this license?
rpmlint can be a bit confusing; in this case, the valid licenses accepted are
overridden by a Fedora-specific file /usr/share/rpmlint/config. The string to
use is "Python Software Foundation License". However, honestly with
absolutely
no license mentioned in the source, you really do need to contact upstream and
get some sort of statement. When you get that, include the correspondence in
the package. (In a perfect world they'd make a new release which includes a
license statement, but this package is pretty old so I doubt that would happen.)
On friday the mailing list archives on sourceforge were unavailable. Today I
found a message [1] to the ML from the main author of ht2html, stating that it
is licensed under the PSF license. So I chaned the license to Python Software
Foundation License".
[1] -
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=1785154&forum_...
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.