On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 07:14 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 12:05 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III 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. > > The fundamental question would be: Is this consideration applicable at > all? > > Consider: Most perl packages are scripts and not linked against > anything. They "use" other packages. So, its only applicable for those items which are only "Artistic" 1.0, not for anything dual licensed, and not for anything which Requires/BuildRequires something "Artistic" 1.0. ~spot
