FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement

[Rahul Sundaram]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  9, 2007, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 
>> Commitment is the first thing established in the guidelines
> 
> Where?
> 

In the licensing section where it says we are only going to include 
software under the FSF free software definition or OSI open source 
definition. For all these we are including SRPMS so source is always 
going to available to end users with the exception of firmware.

Your "Public Promise" proposal that makes it part of policy makes no 
mention of firmware and hence would be inconsistent with the rest of the 
guidelines.

It does not stop things like including Fleundo mp3 plugin (which is what 
I think you have in mind) because we are not a patent licensee in that 
case. It is under a Free software license which satisfies the definition.

 > Probably not, since the FSD is about software, and documentation is
 > not software, even though it's an important element for every piece of
 > software.

Non-free documentation is ok to you?


Rahul