On 6/12/06, Michael Tiemann <tiemann@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:As FC6 planning continues apace, I'd like to make sure that we don't
lose sight of this topic. Is there any way we can push this forward?
It's irritating that we have licenses that are neither free software nor
under OSI-approved licenses. Who is the logical point person for this?
Ok here is what is out of Fedora development this morning.. hoping that the License tag is accurate. There are about 238 packages that need 'cleanups' in one form or another.. my counting had to be done by hand because style issues.
Total Packages: 1155
GPL Only: 504
LGPL Only: 137
MIT/X11: 119
BSD: 58
Artistic/GPL: 42
MIT: 16
GPL/LGPL: 14
Public Domain: 17
Is it worth filing bugs against the 200+ packages that need a cleanup? And who would formulate a standard Licensing schema for this? [Again is it worth it.. beyond pub arguments?] In this case (and when I had to document all the licenses on an RHEL-4 system for ISO-9000), it would have been nice to have a standard scheme:
GPL version 2 or higher [See /usr/share/LICENSES/GPL_V2]
GPL version 2 ONLY
LGPL version 2 or higher
GPL vers2++/LGPL vers2++
Artistic/GPL vers2++
MPL version 1.1
Again this might just be only good for pub arguments.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
