Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Dennis Gilmore <dennis@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> El lun, 05-06-2017 a las 07:42 -0400, Neal Gompa escribió:
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:39 AM,  <dennis@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Spec files are licensed under mit license the same as fedora as a
>> > whole.
>> >
>>
>> Not always. Most of the time, they are, yes. But if someone chose a
>> Free Software license other than that or if the spec file was from
>> the
>> upstream project, it's usually under different terms.
>>
>> FPCA guarantees that it'll be MIT if not specified without requiring
>> a
>> SUSE-style license header at the top of each spec file.
>>
>
> yes if a user chooses to license it under another license they are free
> to do so. Not sure I have ever seen that in practice, however given
> there is over 18,000 source packages I have not read every spec file.
>

Most of the PHP packages are CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, as Remi Collet chose
to license them that way.

-- 
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux