On 10 Aug 2007 12:05:14 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> "RN" == Robin Norwood <rnorwood@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > RN> So you may want to update the license field as you go (Not > RN> blindly, of course...there are probably exceptions). > > I think there may be a few modules out there which are Artistic > _only_, which it seems makes them unacceptable for Fedora. I honestly > had no clue that the artistic license was considered non-free until > spot started the recent licensing work. > Why would Artistic license be considered unacceptable for Fedora? It is OSI approved. It is considered non-free and GPL-incompatible by the FSF. But my impression is that OSI approved is acceptable for Fedora. Also, the Artistic 2.0 license is different. It is OSI approved and GPL compatible. It is used Perl 6 and Parrot without dual licensing. It should be tagged separately. - Ian
