Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > 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 > Open is soooo 1900's. Freedom. For All. Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
