> http://home.badc.rl.ac.uk/lawrence/blog/2005/01/08/open_source_licenses > http://home.badc.rl.ac.uk/lawrence/blog/2005/01/24/MoreOnOpenSource > http://home.badc.rl.ac.uk/lawrence/blog/2005/01/25/legal_stuff Regarding liability (and other legal issues), there is the same issue in France, so some research institutes came with a licence (the cecill) that is better tailored to french law than the GPL and is similar with the GPL. However, there are also other voices saying that the GPL/MIT are perfectly acceptable and that the really problematic points are common to both licences. The only real way to check is to wait for a decision in court, so far in Germany the GPL has been recognized. > Rather than work out these difficulties with the FSF(E), the CCLRC > found it best to come up with their own licensing scheme, it seems. Regarding pure legal issue, it's bad, the FSF is always very helpfull on those subjects (even if it takes time...). -- Pat -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
