On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 04:18 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > In our packaging guidelines > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-76294f12c6b481792eb001ba9763d95e2792e825 > > we state: > > > > The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community > > to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively > > from open source software. In accordance with that, all packages > > included in Fedora must be covered under an open source license. > > > > We clarify an open source license in three ways: > > [...] > > > > Drawing a line on licensing requirements is good, but I've recently > > realized (see below) that this is not quite enough to ensure that > > Fedora users aren't misled into loss of freedom by the Fedora project > > itself. > > > > Consider a Free Software package licensed under a permissive license, > > such as the MIT license. > > > > Consider that someone makes changes to the program and releases the > > whole under the same license, but refrains from publishing the > > corresponding sources. > > > > Is this modified package eligible for inclusion in Fedora? > > > > It certainly is under a Free Software license, but it certainly isn't > > Free Software any more. > > > > > > This is not a theoretical situation. For the past month, I've been > > working on code that was mostly Free Software, but whose integrator > > had refrained from publishing corresponding sources of included Free > > Software packages, even the LGPLed ones. Not the only kind of license > > infringement in that package, mind you. > > > > They even licensed their *own* code under the LGPL, but they didn't > > publish the corresponding source code either (which AFAIK is not a > > license violation AFAIK, but IANAL) > > > > A few more details at http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/157 > > An upcoming article will cover it in far more detail. > > > > > > Anyhow, the point is that it's not enough for there to be an > > applicable license that is a Free Software license (or "open source > > license", per the definition in the Fedora packaging guidelines). > > > > It would be better to state that the software, as distributed by the > > Fedora project, must abide by the Free Software definition and (or?) > > the Open-Source Software definition. > > > > Perhaps it would make sense to also add a note explaining that Fedora > > is committed to not distributing [non-firmware] software in such a way > > that the software wouldn't abide by these definitions, from the point > > of view of the recipients. E.g. software licensed under a Free > > Software license but without corresponding sources. If the reader > > finds deviations s/he should report them. > > > > > > Makes sense? > > Doesn't > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-c23c2cd3782be842dc7ab40c35199c07cfbfe347 > already cover all that? Yes, from what I can see. josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
