On 06/03/2010 02:50 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > 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+) Still okay, just be sure to mark the licenses appropriately. ~spot _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
