[Fedora-packaging] Licensing guidelines suggestions
paul at city-fan.org
Mon Aug 13 12:30:06 UTC 2007
Paul Howarth wrote:
> Ville Skyttä wrote:
>> On Monday 06 August 2007, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 23:05 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>>>> Here's a few notes/questions that IMO need to be addressed in the new
>>>> licensing guidelines in Wiki. IANAL, etc, but anyway, something for
>>>> future FPC meetings (which I still probably won't be able to attend to
>>>> for a couple of weeks):
>>>> 1) The licensing pages strongly imply that OSI-approved licenses are
>>>> However for example the original Artistic license is OSI-approved but
>>>> listed in Wiki page as "bad". Something needs real fixing - "ask
>>>> upstream to move to a "good" Artistic license" is IMO just a band aid.
>>> I think we're going to need the Fedora Board to decide this. Its a
>>> little outside of our jurisdiction, unfortunately.
>> Ok, I'll forward the question to fab-list, hopefully they'll pick this
> I'll be waiting for a resolution of this before updating most of my perl
> module packages - depending on the result, the "same as perl" licensed
> modules may be "GPL+" or "GPL+ or Artistic". I favour the latter
> personally as that's what the upstream authors intended.
I've been working my way through my packages, updating the license
fields as appropriate. I just came across perl-Tie-EncryptedHash, which
is under the Artistic license (only). If this is not an acceptable
license, the package will have to go, and so will perl-Crypt-RSA (which
depends on it) and anything else that depends on that.
More information about the Fedora-packaging