Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 06/04/2010 04:02 AM +9:00: > 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 > Okay, thank you. Mamoru _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
