>>>>> "TC" == Tom Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: TC> Free and GPL compatible. Interesting. The clause about modified copies carrying prominent notices isn't completely clear to me. The GPL (v2, at least) requires that modified _source files_ carry a prominent notice (which is probably something with which few people actually comply) but this EPICS license is unclear as to whether it's the source files, the documentation, or the output of the program itself which must carry the notice. My reading of the EPICS license would suggest that a README.Fedora file included in the usual location for documentation would be sufficient notice, but I'm no lawyer. Still, for these "prominent notice" things, I wonder if there's any information anywhere about just how packagers should supply such notices or exactly what they should do to comply with such licenses. Does our method of supplying pristine source + patches take care of at least the GPL requirements? (I'm sure the smart folks have already thought of this, of course; I just don't know if it's written down anywhere.) - J< _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
