-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Hi all.

I make a speech again about a couple of license issues. In past, both questions have been discussed in two different package-reviews:

1- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566750 2- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=715314

Currently, I have opened a new package review request (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908089) of Ipopt which considers both Mumps and Metis employment. Politely, Paulo shows me that these license types have already been evaluated some months ago.

In particular, I wish to point out:

- - Mumps is released without any copyright or license rescriction but as 'public domain': http://mumps.enseeiht.fr/index.php?page=credits

- - Metis seems "can be used for non-commercial projects without any restrictions. For commercial-use, the essential restriction is for the vendors not to be reselling Metis". https://projects.coin-or.org/BuildTools/browser/ThirdParty/Metis/trunk/INSTA... http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/metis/metis/faq?q=metis/metis/faq#distribut...

Should I consider these licenses incompatible with Fedora policies definitively ?

Regards

- -- Antonio Trande "Fedora Ambassador" "Fedora italian translation group" "Blogger"

mail: mailto:sagitter@fedoraproject.org Homepage: http://www.fedora-os.org Sip Address : sip:sagitter AT ekiga.net Jabber :sagitter AT jabber.org GPG Key: D400D6C4