[fab] [Fwd: What is the mkisofs license?]

[Rex Dieter]

Rahul wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Rahul wrote:
>>> Tom Callaway wrote:
>>
>>>> We don't need to analyze Extras for FSF license compliance, IMHO.
>>
>>> The packaging guidelines changes if any would affect both the 
>>> repositories and the distribution on the whole includes both. Not 
>>> sure why you would consider excluding Fedora Extras.
>>
>> AFAIK, no one has proposed/sugggested so far that Fedora's packaging 
>> guidelines require FSF license compliance (instead of simply 
>> opensource.org ) yet.
>>
> 
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-April/msg00170.html 
> 
> 
> I have independently done the same to the board. I would like to know if 
> others support this or not.

Offhand, I'd say -1, status-quo is sufficient.  My mind isn't set in 
stone though... I'm just not yet convinced that there would be 
sufficient tangible benefit to outweigh the (possible) loss of 
non-FSF-compliant bits.

-- Rex

-- Rex