[fab] project hosting?

[Paul W. Frields]

On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 15:28 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 12:12 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > Bill Nottingham (notting at redhat.com) said: 
> > >> Rahul Sundaram (sundaram at fedoraproject.org) said: 
> > >>> It is far from clear to me why Fedora needs to provide its own
> > >>> infrastructure for itself rather than just use something like Savannah.
> > >> Integrating the translation project into Savannah seems like
> > >> it would be hard, if not impossible.
> > > 
> > > Addtional points that would be problematic:
> > > 
> > > Savannah project musts:
> > > * Use a license compatible with the GNU GPL;
> > 
> > Any current/potential problems with this?
> 
> Is the OPL compatible with the GNU GPL?

Provided the copyright holder does not exercise either of the optional
clauses (which we don't in Fedora), it is considered a "free"
documentation license according to the FSF:

  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#RealOPL

I would say that's probably the best answer you'll get, outside of a
Real Legal Opinion that performs an exhaustive analysis of the
conjunction of those licenses. Further IANAL answers are probably just
as useless as mine. :-D

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20060420/a7106bd6/attachment.sig>