[Bug 233423] Review Request: python-mecab - Python binding for MeCab

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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:  python-mecab - Python binding for MeCab


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233423





------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl  2007-04-01 02:31 EST -------
Ralf,

I don't see the big problem here ?? I do see a small problem though: Mamoru, I
seem to have missed the fact (my bad) that you have included a modified tarbal
in the SRPM, with license files added. Don't do that! Please provide a new
version with the original tarbal and include a README.fedora pointing to the
license docs in /usr/share/doc/mecab-0.95, those should always be present since
python-mecab Requires mecab. 

Ralf Mamoru is very carefull about licenses AFAIK, for one of the mecab-XXXX
dictionaries I reviewed he explicitly asked Spot if the license was ok. Also the
main mecab is under the BSD/GPL/LGPL, and the main mecab docs refer to this
package as if its an integral part (for as far as I can read japanese) , add to
that the this is distributed from the same website as the main package, has the
same author (which is listed in the original tarbal) , and is indeed all
autogenerated with swig, and I don't see any real problem. We have more packages
where the website says this is GPL, but they forgot to add any license to the
tarbal, there we always request upstream to fix it and in the mean time ship it
as is. So I agree that the adding off licenses by Mamoru is bad, but that
doesn't amke this whole package bad.


-- 
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.