Fedora Extras License Audit
Patrice Dumas
pertusus at free.fr
Wed Jan 24 00:54:09 UTC 2007
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 03:16:24PM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> As part of our ongoing committment to Open Source, Fedora Extras is
> undergoing a license audit of the packages contained within it. We do
> this for several reasons:
>
> 1. To ensure that we don't have any packages containing licenses that do
> not meet the Fedora licensing standards.
I take that opportunity to ask a few questions for cases that seem
unclear to me.
Do we consider files with copyright or a mention of an author and no
license to be problematic, or to be covered by the main license (if such
a thing exists)? Files copyrighted, but without license should be
considered to be under a restrictive license (no modification nor
redistribution). However, when the remaining of the package is
consistently under a given license and the authors are the same I
consider that the notice is missing, but that the main license cover the
files. Is it right?
Do we consider files with incomplete license notice (when a complete
notice exists, like for the GPL) to be problematic?
--
Pat
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list