A licensing question

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 4/18/06, Victor Skovorodnikov <vic_sk at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  Would you please elaborate on as to why it is unacceptable?  I though
> Fedora is, by definitiion, non-commercial.

While the Fedora project itself does not monetarily profit from the
codebase, the project endeavors to protect the right/freedom of other
people to use the sourcecode base as the basis for a commercial
endeavor.  For example its perfectly acceptable for 3rd party vendors
to commercially sell mediasets(with the appropriate warranty) of the
fedora core and extras repositories. By including some packages which
can not be included in such mediasets, you have greatly complicated
vendor involvement.

I suggest you become more familiar with the OSI definition of "open
source" as a general guiding principle as to what licensing terms are
acceptable.
http://opensource.org/docs/definition.html
Non-commercial clauses fail OSI's "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor"
principle and thus unacceptable.

-jef