Peter Gordon wrote : > On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 10:15 +0200, Matthias Saou wrote: > > Libaca is licensed under the "DO WHAT THE F**K YOU WANT TO PUBLIC > > LICENSE". Here is the full text (it's so short) : > > > According to an old post [1] on the debian-legal mailing list, the FSF > says that this license is a valid Free Software license. (Highly > amusing, but Free nonetheless.) > > Therefore, I can imagine that this would be legally acceptable for > Fedora, also. > > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/09/msg00032.html Yes, my question wasn't really is it was acceptable or not, as it seemed pretty clear that it was. It's just not listed in the wiki "Licensing" page, and now that we're trying to stick to clearly defined strings for the package License field, I just don't know what to put there. My guess is that we'll need to add a "WTFPL" line :-/ Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) - Linux kernel 2.6.22.1-27.fc7 Load : 0.51 0.47 0.45 -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
