Victor Skovorodnikov wrote:
*/Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>/* wrote:
Thats incompatible with Fedora packaging guidelines. A written license
should be included that is Free and/or open source is required.
Should I get this written license from Paul Riche III, UR Quan Masters
developers or can I write it myself?
You need to get it from him; as the author, he is the only person that
can set the licensing terms. And in case you missed the subtlety in
Rahul's message, it's not the "written license should be included" bit
which is so much of a problem (though you should indeed include a text
file with the package containing the license as written by the author).
The main problem is the fact that the license he gave you isn't a Free
software license and is therefore still incompatible with Fedora.
("free for non-commercial purposes" isn't Free in this context; we're
talking about freedom not free-from-charge here; see:
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-76294f12c6b481792eb001ba9763d95e2792e825
and, for some background:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
)
Tim
P.S. OT: The destination anchors generated by the wiki suck. 40 random
hex digits is just ridiculous for uniqueness within a page.
".../Guidelines#Licensing" would be much more appropriate. Is this possible?
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
