On 22/05/06, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> wrote:
There are many terms in the licence that are incompatible with free software (obligation to send back patches, only academic use...), so not compatible with fedora.
Yes, that was my reading to. However, having read through all 20 pages (!!) of their license file, it seems clear that their intentions are good, and that their main concern is that the source code is kept open and free, though they are clumsy in the execution of that. CCLRC is a publically (tax payer) funded research council here in the UK, and I would imagine that they are committed to keeping the source open. I suspect that a carefully worded letter/email explaining the problems with the license and offering suggested solutions would be well received once they are convinced that the GPL would serve their needs. Jonathan. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
