Odd licenses

Andrew Overholt overholt at redhat.com
Fri Feb 9 19:58:57 UTC 2007


* Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr> [2007-02-09 14:51]:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 02:43:50PM -0500, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> > adaptx license.txt
> > [2]
> > http://svn.codehaus.org/castor/adaptx/trunk/src/doc/license.txt
> 
> This seems to be BSD-like to me. There is condition that I dislike,
> because it doesn't have an obvious meaning (a clause similar is often
> seen on scientific packages):
> 
> 5. Due credit should be given to the ExoLab Group (http://www.exolab.org).
> 
> It doesn't explain when credit is "due", how credit should be given.
> Is it for the use, the redistribution, both? I don't think this is a
> blocker, though. My interpretation is that having this license in the 
> package is enough.

Okay, so what should License: be?

Thanks,

Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070209/6ce854c4/attachment.sig>


More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list