Rahul wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
Rahul wrote:
Tom Callaway wrote:
We don't need to analyze Extras for FSF license compliance, IMHO.
The packaging guidelines changes if any would affect both the
repositories and the distribution on the whole includes both. Not
sure why you would consider excluding Fedora Extras.
AFAIK, no one has proposed/sugggested so far that Fedora's packaging
guidelines require FSF license compliance (instead of simply
opensource.org ) yet.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-April/msg00170.html
I have independently done the same to the board. I would like to know if
others support this or not.
Offhand, I'd say -1, status-quo is sufficient. My mind isn't set in
stone though... I'm just not yet convinced that there would be
sufficient tangible benefit to outweigh the (possible) loss of
non-FSF-compliant bits.
-- Rex
-- Rex
_______________________________________________
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
