Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 22:27 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
Today, FESCo ratified a new policy for handling the License tag inside
of package spec files.
You can read the new Licensing Guidelines here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines
What does this mean for Fedora package maintainers? It means that you're
going to need to do a little bit of work. We want F8 packages to have
the correct license tag before we release F8.
Okay, 2 more questions:
1: Currently the short for "zlib License" is just zlib. However most current
zlib licensed packages currently contain the following as License tag:
"zlib/libpng License" as that is what rpmlint wants. Changing all these tags
merely because someone thought zlib would be more descriptive feels very wrong.
I'm all for one standard for this. But why deviate from the table in rpmlint, a
tool long used for reviews, in cases where this isn't necessary. Also I believe
that no matter whats gets choisen as short form the long one should be
"zlib/libpng License" and not just "zlib License", as now a days its most often
refered to as the "zlib/libpng License" see for example:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php
We've actually fixed rpmlint to match the new license table. :)
I'll update the long name to be "zlib/libpng License".
Erm, in response to the second part of my question:
> I have some questions missing from the QA part you posted. What about
> freely redistributable but not modifiable contect, does that get:
> "Freely redistributable without restriction"
> or:
> "Redistributable, no modification permitted"
>
> And since content and firmware AFAIK are sort of the same exception,
> shouldn't these 2 be made more consisty, and shouldn't the latter thus be:
> "Freely redistributable without restriction, no modification permitted" ?
>
You wrote, you kept "Redistributable, no modification permitted" the same to
avoid churn, the why not also keep "zlib/libpng License" as "zlib/libpng
License" to avoid churn? It isn't all that important since we will need a mass
rebuild anyways, but I still wonder.
2: Why aren't the ND variants of the CC licenses allowed for content?
Quoting from:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-8be956fd12dbe4ae927e65c989e7e83b9fcc0b80
'In this case, the gamedata files can be packaged and included in Fedora, as
long as the files meet the requirements for binary firmware.'
And then quoting from:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-adf31c383612aac313719f7b4f8167b7dcf245d2
'The License tag for any firmware that disallows modification should be set to:
"Redistributable, no modification permitted"'
On basis of this the Games SIG has long been reviewing and approving game
datafiles which lack permission to modify. Especially for for example music it
is quite common for the artist to say: "You may do with this as you want, but
you may not modify it, I made it and to me it is perfect as it is, so either
take it as it is, or leave it".
Its an oversight, I'll amend it now. Thanks for pointing that out.
I'm glad to hear that.
Regards,
Hans
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
