Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Monday 18 December 2006 22:12, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
http://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/bcfg2/browser/trunk/bcfg2/LICENSE
Free enough for extras?
Jeff
We have simple guidelines. must be OSI or FSF approved. If its not then its
not acceptable
That is not how I and many others read the guidelines, if its on one of
those 2 approved lists then its easy, but if it matches their guidelines
or the DFSG then its ok too. To quote the guidelines:
"We clarify an open source license in three ways:" Notice clarify,
nowhere the guidelines say the license must be on of those 3 lists!
Take for example the short license which is on Crystal Stacker, which I
negotiated personally with the author from a freeware license with
abnoxious clauses:
"Crystal Stacker is freeware. This means you can pass copies around
freely provided you include this document in it's original form in your
distribution. Please see the "Contacting Us" section of this document if
you need to contact us for any reason.
"The source code is provided as-is and you may do with it whatsoever you
please provided that you include this file in its unmodified form with
any new distribution. NewCreature Design makes no gaurantees regarding
the usability of the source but are willing to help with any problems
you might run into. Please see the "Contacting Us" section of this
document if you need to get in touch with us about any issues you have
regarding the source."
A short 100% fine license, but according to you not acceptable, which is
very strange since it has been in FE for about a year now.
Please lets keep pragmatic on this. According to me the current bcfg2
license is just fine. Its even in Debian and thus meets the DFSG and
thus is ok for FE.
Regards,
Hans
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
