[fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected]

[Karsten Wade]

On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 11:37 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>  Case in point: the Open
> Publication License with no optional clauses is considered a free
> (documentation) license by the FSF[1], but it contains a verbatim copy
> of the clause in question.  (It also includes a verbatim copy of the
> inclusion clause you cited earlier, and from reading over both of them,
> I wouldn't be surprised if one was the basis for the other.)  

Yep, I noticed that right away; it seems to be a very close variant on
the OPL.

> In any
> case, license proliferation is annoying. :-)

Perhaps the NSA can let us know why this PUL was created instead of
using the existing OPL.  If the GPL is good enough for government work,
why not the OPL?

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor    ^     Fedora Documentation Project 
 Sr. Developer Relations Mgr.     |  fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
   quaid.108.redhat.com           |          gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
-------------- 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/20060804/2386dc58/attachment.sig>