[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: New license question regarding libcaca

Peter Gordon wrote :

> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 10:15 +0200, Matthias Saou wrote:
> > Libaca is licensed under the "DO WHAT THE F**K YOU WANT TO PUBLIC
> > LICENSE". Here is the full text (it's so short) :
> According to an old post [1] on the debian-legal mailing list, the FSF
> says that this license is a valid Free Software license. (Highly
> amusing, but Free nonetheless.)
> Therefore, I can imagine that this would be legally acceptable for
> Fedora, also.
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/09/msg00032.html

Yes, my question wasn't really is it was acceptable or not, as it
seemed pretty clear that it was. It's just not listed in the wiki
"Licensing" page, and now that we're trying to stick to clearly defined
strings for the package License field, I just don't know what to put

My guess is that we'll need to add a "WTFPL" line :-/


Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) - Linux kernel
Load : 0.51 0.47 0.45

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]