On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 09:48 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "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 Keep in mind: I was asked to audit Fedora Core to ensure that everything in Fedora Core had a Free Software Foundation compatible and approved "Free license". Fedora Extras is still using the Open Source Definition to determine license applicability. If selinux-doc was in Extras, it would be OK. > 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? Probably, along with the notation that some of the included material in the merged document set was under that license. > So are anonymous modifications permitted? It would seem to be overly > restrictive otherwise. Probably not, but this is not terribly unusual. See the Linux kernel. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! _______________________________________________ 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
