Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 06/04/2010 01:41 AM +9:00: > On 06/01/2010 02:00 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: >> Hello: >> >> In the review of rubygem-ncursesw (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597709) >> I noticed that some example files are licensed under "Linux Documentation Project License": >> >> http://tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html >> >> I would appreciate it if it is investigated if this license is acceptable for Fedora >> or not. > > Yeah. This license is Free (GPL-incompatible, but that doesn't matter > much for a documentation license). > > Use: > > License: LDPL Well, I must have written a bit more clearer. In this review request (rubygem-ncursesw) some example ruby codes (i.e. scripts written in ruby), not "documents", are licensed under LDPL. How should such case be treated? (GPL incompatibility doesn't matter for this review. The sample ruby codes actually uses rubygem-ncursesw but rubygem-ncursesw is under LGPLv2+) Regards, Mamoru _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
