http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=740
--- Comment #20 from Göran Uddeborg <[email protected]> 2010-12-11 12:18:56 --- > I can't see any advantage in labelling the License as "Meka" or "BSD-like" > (even though I prefer the former) over Distributable The problem I see with "distributable" is that it doesn't say anything. All packages in the repo are distributable, whether it is closed source and no modifications allowed nvidia drivers, or a very free package like the core bits of meka. > Anyway, this is really up to you. You are the reviewer and I have to follow > your suggestions I am trying to CONVINCE you, but I won't ENFORCE my view. Especially since the rules for the license part is slightly fuzzy, since it is one area where RPMfusion differs from Fedora. If you add "and non-commercial" to the license, I will accept this package, even though I personally think "Meka" or "BSD-like" would be better than "distributable". By the way, I see the relation between packager and reviewer more as a cooperation than as one person judging the other. (And I am not saying this just because we have the roles reversed for m2vmp2cut! :-) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
