I wrote: >> Bug #560181 correctly points out that although mysql's code is >> distributed under GPL, the associated documentation is not. >> The reporter proposes classifying it as "Redistributable, no >> modification permitted", but I thought I'd ask this list about >> opinions on the best license tag for it. The doc license looks >> like this: >> >> Copyright 1997-2008 MySQL AB, 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. >> >> This documentation is NOT distributed under a GPL license. Use of this >> documentation is subject to the following terms: You may create a >> printed copy of this documentation solely for your own personal use. >> Conversion to other formats is allowed as long as the actual content is >> not altered or edited in any way. You shall not publish or distribute >> this documentation in any form or on any media, except if you >> distribute the documentation in a manner similar to how Sun >> disseminates it (that is, electronically for download on a Web site >> with the software) or on a CD-ROM or similar medium, provided however >> that the documentation is disseminated together with the software on >> the same medium. Any other use, such as any dissemination of printed >> copies or use of this documentation, in whole or in part, in another >> publication, requires the prior written consent from an authorized >> representative of Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sun Microsystems, Inc. and >> MySQL AB reserve any and all rights to this documentation not expressly >> granted above. to which Richard Fontana replied: > These terms seem not to satisfy current Fedora licensing guidelines, > if I'm not mistaken. Spot? Ping? I'm not sure if the above constitutes a final decision or not. If it does, must I edit the tarball to remove the offending file, or is it sufficient to not install it? regards, tom lane _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal