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=678809 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcall...@redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcall...@redhat.com Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal) --- Comment #18 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcall...@redhat.com> 2011-11-07 12:37:34 EST --- So, the license combination gives me a headache, but I think it all hooks together okay (barely). I've asked Red Hat Legal to double-check it for me. There is one notable exception to that statement: the ripemd stuff is non-free. We tried to get the upstream copyright holder to resolve the licensing issue in the past, but we were not successful. See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452453 So, unless upstream can find a free rmd160 implementation (I am not aware of any that is not either the reference one (which is what this code uses right now) or derived from the reference one) or switches to a different cipher type, this one isn't going into Fedora. Blocking FE-Legal. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
