|
I'll try to convince Mike to make a dual license. On 11/08/2017 04:34 PM, Solomon Peachy
wrote:
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 03:25:22PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:Well that page only refers to OpenSSL and even then it points out that other distros have differing opinions. Personally I think it is dubious even for OpenSSL, and if you start broadening it further to claim it applies to what are effectively application level libiraries like libcups, where does it end ? You could just claim it applies to any widely used library in Fedora, at which point you're effectively just trying to nullify all licensing rules, whichs is not acceptable IMHO.I've bumped this over to the legal mailing list [1]. We'll see what their far more knowledgable heads have to say. [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/TYGLR34XR6L6MAXMVSDNYT3ZYXUKY7FX/ - Solomon -- Zdenek Dohnal Associate Software Engineer Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
