Fwd: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Licensing guidelines suggestions
Tom "spot" Callaway
tcallawa at redhat.com
Tue Aug 7 14:11:00 UTC 2007
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 19:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 18:59 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >>> Below is some discussion about Fedora licensing that took place on
> >>> fedora-packaging to day, perhaps the board could put it on the meeting
> >>> agenda?
> >> What was the original reason why it was deemed bad?
> >
> > The original Artistic license is far too vague, the intent is not clear.
> > Upstream perl agreed, redid the license and made a 2.0 version, which is
> > free & GPL compat.
> >
> > Unfortunately, nothing will use Artistic 2.0 until perl6.
>
> Since you aren't relying solely on OSI requirement why not drop it and
> point to the licensing wiki page as the canonical list in
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines?
That's not the question that needs answering.
The question is:
There are licenses which are on the OSI approved list but which are
considered non-free by the FSF. Are these licenses OK for Fedora or not?
~spot
More information about the fedora-advisory-board
mailing list