>>>>> "TC" == Tom Callaway <Tom> writes: TC> While I don't disagree with you, it is unique. I wasn't examining TC> what I believe to be free, I was checking our tree against what TC> the FSF agrees to be free. I would figure the Open Source Definition would apply: http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php Still, two things immediately bother me about the license: --- III. SCOPE OF LICENSE Mere aggregation of Public Use works or a portion of a Public Use work with other works or programs on the same media shall not cause this license to apply to those other works. The aggregate work shall contain a notice specifying the inclusion of the Public Use material and appropriate copyright notice. --- The last sentence is troubling because it's not immediately clear what satisfies it. Does merely including a copy of the license as a package would normally do suffice? In addition: --- IV. REQUIREMENTS ON MODIFIED WORKS All modified versions of documents covered by this license, including translations, anthologies, compilations and partial documents, must meet the following requirements: 1. The modified version must be labeled as such. 2. The person making the modifications must be identified and the modifications dated. --- So are anonymous modifications permitted? It would seem to be overly restrictive otherwise. - J< _______________________________________________ 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
