On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 14:17 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Razvan Corneliu C.R. Vilt (razvan.vilt@xxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > Good point. But based on the docs on the internet, we could implement > > something similar in functionality. They kinda had the same problems > > that we are facing right now. I suspect that it should be soon covered > > by the CDDL Licence, provided the imminent OpenSolaris release. Although > > not GPL, I think that it's good enough to be included in Fedora Core, > > due to it's Mozilla Public Licence heritage diff at > > http://www.sun.com/cddl/CDDL_MPL_redline.pdf and FAQ at > > http://www.opensolaris.org/faq/licensing_faq.html and licence at > > http://www.opensolaris.org/license/cddl_license.txt. > > No, CDDL (like ASPL, actually) isn't a viable license for Fedora code. > > Bill > Bill, Specifics? -edge
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
