[removed publican-list from cc] On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:44:54 -0500 Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [re: WTFPL] > Might I suggest simply modifying the offensive language? I know > license proliferation is bad, but if the result is legally equivalent > and serves the necessary purpose then I don't see any reason not to > just do it. Certainly Fedora should be prepared to accept licenses that are equivalent to the WTFPL just as it accepts the WTFPL. Also there's no question that the WTFPL has earned an important place in FOSS culture despite being rarely used. However, this is a situation where Red Hat is acting as copyright holder and/or outbound licensor. For *Red Hat code* we generally avoid licenses that are not commonly used (i.e., that aren't associated with substantial project communities), and we generally avoid licenses that are modified versions of other licenses, unless the modified version is itself a commonly-used license. Of course the mere fact that a license is popular doesn't mean it's better, but we see a lot of value in promoting license standardization. For those reasons (and not any sense of primness), we wouldn't encourage our developers to apply the WTFPL to Red Hat-copyrighted code, and we'd certainly oppose applying some sanitized WTFPL derivative to Red Hat-copyrighted code. (On the other hand we encourage our developers to make licensing decisions that are informed by concerns about their users.) - RF _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
