[Fedora-packaging] Is this license okay for a fedora package?

Jarod Wilson jwilson at redhat.com
Wed Mar 28 21:53:31 UTC 2007

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "SS" == Simo Sorce <ssorce at redhat.com> writes:
> SS> Not sure if that license is free, to me it stinks, but in any case
> SS> the GFDL is a Documentation License, not a Software License,
> I haven't written otherwise.
> SS> let's keep apples to apples comparisons, and let's try to not get
> SS> infected by the Debian disease about defining what is software.
> We frequently make use of research that the Debian folks have done,
> and anything which is not acceptable to them bears strong scrutiny
> before we consider it acceptable for Fedora.  If you wish to
> characterize their efforts as some sort of illness then that's your
> business but please concentrate on reasonable discourse here.

Yeah, I figured section 4 might be an issue...

I'm definitely not a lawyer either, and the license isn't optimal, but
what exactly stops us from packaging it? (Not trying to be difficult,
just trying to understand). We'd be packaging it in a way that satisfies
4a, and users are welcome to modify it once its installed on their
system. Or is the fact that you couldn't change the branding for
redistribution if you wanted to enough to give it the boot?

Jarod Wilson
jwilson at redhat.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070328/f33d54ac/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list