On 7/25/07, Horst H. von Brand <vonbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is worse than I feared the fabled GPLv3 fallout could be...
Worse in what way exactly? Isn't licensing transparency important? Splitting packages based on licensing might look like a crap load of work that noone is thrilled about doing... but the reality is, noone is going to be thrilled about doing the work to that makes license compliance a managable endeavor. There is nothing sexy from a technical perspective about license compliance, but the need for it a reality...especially now that we've run into a situation where lots of concurrent codebase relicensing will be happening higgly-piggly. If we are serious about having tools in our buildsystem that make this less painful moving forward, then what Chuck has suggested seems like a reasonably valid point of discussion. If we are serious about building programmatic automation tools, then we will have to adapt how we do things to make the automation reliable. The only question is how much error are we prepared to deal with, and how much effort are we prepared to expend. -jef"Are there people out there who enjoy exploring the minutia of open source licensing? If you are reading this, feel free to talk to me off-list about potentially contributing time for Fedora licensing auditing"spaleta -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
