On 02.01.2008 15:34, Matt Domsch wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 03:18:19PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> The topic "permission to use Fedora spec files in other projects" is >> still on the EPEL agenda, as that's the area where the topic came up. >> @Board, @FESCo: Any progress on this? The last update on the topic and >> the discussion didn't solve the problem afaik. What's needed is afaics a >> official statement like "Spec files from Fedora are licensed as <foo> if >> not otherwise specified in the header of the spec file" from the Board >> in a official place. > The Board discussed this, and decided that the spec files need to be > licensed in one of two ways: > > 1) preferred - with the same license as the source code it builds. > This is the default unless the spec file specifies otherwise. As > every Fedora-acceptable license allows for derivative works, this > should satisfy people's needs and obeys the principle of least > surprise. > > 2) less preferred - with a license that is extremely permissive, such > as MIT/X11, specified in the spec file itself. Okay, but was that written down somewhere in a official place so people can look it up and put in save place when they pick up a spec file from Fedora? Otherwise the decision is of no value. Cu knurd _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
