Hi
The packaging committee has clearly defined their role as taking care of
how software is being packaged in Fedora and not what is being packaged.
What is being packaged is defined by our legal policies which are
currently intermixed in different sections along with the packaging
guidelines. Several third party repositories have started relying on the
Fedora Packaging guidelines but deviate in their licensing policies.
Over a period of time, there are a number of clarifications that might
required. Richard M Stallman has pointed out that our guidelines
currently either Free software as defined by FSF and Open source
software as defined by OSI to be included in Fedora. Some of the OSI
certified Open Source licenses are considered non-free by FSF. We need
to consider whether we want to slightly change the guidelines to require
both Free and Open Source licenses or just Free software licenses. Brett
Smith from FSF in a offline discussion pointed that we don't explicitly
define the licensing for documentation. We need to make that clear.
Alexandre Oliva has pointed out that we don't explicitly promise to
provide source code to end users. I think that's a good thing to clarify
too.
Splitting up the legal policies from the packaging guidelines in helpful
to define the role of Fedora Packaging Committee better and enable
different repositories to reuse the packaging guidelines in a easier way
Note that I did ask FESCo to look into that and don't think any
changes were discussed.
Does this splitting up the legal section into a separate policy document
managed by Fedora Project Board sense to folks here? I can present a draft.
Rahul
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
