On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 07:20 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > > Can you explain this a bit more please? Particularly if you're going to > > push it to FESCo. > > > > 1) Why do we need to examine code coming from upstream updates? (E.g. > > only to make sure the license tag spells out the correct version?) > > I did attend this meeting (last one as a leaving board member). GPLv3 is > mutually incompatible with GPLv2. If we pull in updates where the code > has been relicensed we would need to check for implications which are > rather complex. See http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/ Hm, ok. Should that be part of the review steps now? > > > 2) What packaging issues need to be discussed with legal? > > EULA and collective copyright is under GPLv2 for Fedora currently. Not packaging issues. > Whether Software that is entirely under the copyright of Red Hat or > where Fedora is upstream would move from GPLv2 to GPLv3. Not packaging issues. > Whether it is worth the effort to separate the license tags in RPM > between GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed software from the legal perspective. OK. > Any other legal things to cross check as a result of a additional GPLv3 > license and any new restrictions that it might have introduced to us as > a distribution. This is what I'm asking about. Sounds like it's still in the investigatory stage. josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
