Thank you for clarifying. I think that the link you've provided refers to source code. The source code is mine and I am perfectly willing to provide whatever (commercial included) license you require. But, do images also fall into the "Open Source" category? While there is a lot of explanation of what "Open Source" is, it talks about source code I think, not images.
Can the images be licensed for non-commercial purposes while the source code can be for commercial as that article indicates? After all, it is the code that would form the basis of my package, not the images
Thanks,
Victor.
Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/18/06, Victor Skovorodnikovwrote:
> Would you please elaborate on as to why it is unacceptable? I though
> Fedora is, by definitiion, non-commercial.
While the Fedora project itself does not monetarily profit from the
codebase, the project endeavors to protect the right/freedom of other
people to use the sourcecode base as the basis for a commercial
endeavor. For example its perfectly acceptable for 3rd party vendors
to commercially sell mediasets(with the appropriate warranty) of the
fedora core and extras repositories. By including some packages which
can not be included in such mediasets, you have greatly complicated
vendor involvement.
I suggest you become more familiar with the OSI definition of "open
source" as a general guiding principle as to what licensing terms are
acceptable.
http://opensource.org/docs/definition.html
Non-commercial clauses fail OSI's "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor"
principle and thus unacceptable.
-jef
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
