FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement

[Tom "spot" Callaway]

On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 20:26 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> > It is implicit in the "only licenses approved by the FSF or OSI are OK
> > for Fedora".
> 
> I'm afraid it isn't.  AFAIK GPLv3 will be the first Free Software
> license to stop the kind of practice I'm alluding to.

Well, I doubt we will move to a "only GPLv3" licensing policy anytime in
the near future.

> FWIW, I misunderstood what you wrote.  I seemed to me that you were
> saying the board wouldn't agree to making a public commitment not to
> accept such agreements, rather than what I now think you meant, that
> the board wouldn't accept such agreements.  Right?

Yes, that's right.

> >> What sorts of things exactly?  It depends on what you understand by
> >> "limiting users' freedoms."  Requiring certain images to be removed,
> >> for example, doesn't.  Howver, requiring them to be replaced to keep
> >> the software functional, and having lots and lots of them, would turn
> >> the replacement into an unsurmountable work, which would effectively
> >> limit the freedoms.  What do you think the board would disagree with?
> 
> > I don't think the Fedora Board would make any trademark or patent
> > agreements that would limit user freedoms.
> 
> Then I guess the board might be willing to make clear its
> unwillingness to accept such agreements, no?

You'd have to ask them. :)

~spot