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

Jarod Wilson jwilson at redhat.com
Wed Mar 28 21:55:50 UTC 2007

Jarod Wilson wrote:
> 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?

Another thing to consider... How different is this from the Firefox case?

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/20070328/5aa27a2e/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list