Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 18:59 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Below is some discussion about Fedora licensing that took place on
fedora-packaging to day, perhaps the board could put it on the meeting
agenda?
What was the original reason why it was deemed bad?
The original Artistic license is far too vague, the intent is not clear.
Upstream perl agreed, redid the license and made a 2.0 version, which is
free & GPL compat.
Unfortunately, nothing will use Artistic 2.0 until perl6.
Since you aren't relying solely on OSI requirement why not drop it and
point to the licensing wiki page as the canonical list in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines?
Rahul
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
