On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 15:28 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 12:12 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > Bill Nottingham (notting@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > >> Rahul Sundaram (sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > >>> It is far from clear to me why Fedora needs to provide its own > > >>> infrastructure for itself rather than just use something like Savannah. > > >> Integrating the translation project into Savannah seems like > > >> it would be hard, if not impossible. > > > > > > Addtional points that would be problematic: > > > > > > Savannah project musts: > > > * Use a license compatible with the GNU GPL; > > > > Any current/potential problems with this? > > Is the OPL compatible with the GNU GPL? Provided the copyright holder does not exercise either of the optional clauses (which we don't in Fedora), it is considered a "free" documentation license according to the FSF: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#RealOPL I would say that's probably the best answer you'll get, outside of a Real Legal Opinion that performs an exhaustive analysis of the conjunction of those licenses. Further IANAL answers are probably just as useless as mine. :-D -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
