On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 19:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > 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? That's not the question that needs answering. The question is: There are licenses which are on the OSI approved list but which are considered non-free by the FSF. Are these licenses OK for Fedora or not? ~spot _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
