[Bug 427482] Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: publican-fedora - Fedora Publishing Theme


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427482





------- Additional Comments From kwade at redhat.com  2008-02-13 03:34 EST -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > rpmlint says:

> >  publican-fedora.src: W: invalid-license Open Publication License
> > 
> > The Fedora short license name is "Open Publication": see
> >
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-7c329132fff48be993272795da69b49c7812e8a9
> 
> Fixed.

The legal notice specifies " ... Open Publication License, V1.0 or
later ..."  My understanding from Red Hat Legal (discussion with Mark
Webbink) is that we don't want to use the "or later" language because we
don't want to commit to using something that doesn't even exist yet.

I'm not sure if this matters.  That can exist in the toolchain and not
be the same in the doc itself, right?  As upstream you have a range of
licensing decisions you can make, but since it's actually RHT as the
upstream, I recommend this more conservative language.

If you like, you can swipe the lingo directly from the Fedora Docs
legal notice:

http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/f8/en_US/legalnotice.html
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/f8/en_US/sn-legalnotice.html

The first is a pointer with set-up, so the set-up lingo matches what
the main legal notice page has.  The wording on the
sn-legalnotice.html is directly from the OPL; the rest is a modified
grandchild of the legal notice that used to be in RHEL docs, inherited
through the original Fedora days.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.