I have not looked at the final draft, but as I understand it the purpose of issuing eupl 1.1 was to make it osi compliant. So it *should* be good now.
Luis
On May 29, 2009 9:35 AM, "Caolán McNamara" <caolanm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On this list previously the EUPL v1.0 was considered unacceptable for
Fedora,
(http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx/msg00144.html)
Since then, there is now a EUPL v1.1, http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl
does that fix the problems, or remain unacceptable ?
Assuming that the EUPL v1.1 remains unacceptable, can someone e.g. dual
licence something as EUPL v1.X and say LGPLv2 in order to make it
acceptable for us.
C.
_______________________________________________
Fedora-legal-list mailing list
Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
_______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
