Fwd: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Licensing guidelines suggestions
Jeroen van Meeuwen
kanarip at kanarip.com
Tue Aug 7 22:44:04 UTC 2007
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> 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
>
Open is soooo 1900's. Freedom. For All.
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
More information about the fedora-advisory-board
mailing list