On Wednesday 20 December 2006 06:29, Hans de Goede wrote: > 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! the three does not include DFSG what debain does has zero impact on what we do http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-76294f12c6b481792eb001ba9763d95e2792e825 says We clarify an open source license in three ways: OSI-approved license. You can find the list of OSI approved licenses here: [WWW] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses. You can find the list here: [WWW] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses. You can find the list here: [WWW] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses followed in the guidelines by If the license of a package isn't covered in one of those lists, urge the upstream maintainer to seek OSI-approval for their license here: [WWW] http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval > 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: > > 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. Which i would not of allowed in as it is not using an approved license. There is to be an audit license of Extras at some point in the new year. at that time anything not meeting our guidelines will need to be removed. > 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. Again Debian's guidelines are Debian's not fedora's -- Regards Dennis Gilmore RHCE Network Manager Royal Publishing (309)693-3171 x299 7620 N. Harker Drive Peoria IL 61615 Fedora Core release 6 (Zod) 08:54:48 up 13 days, 13:04, 2 users, load average: 0.90, 0.85, 0.58 -- ,-._|\ Dennis Gilmore, RHCE / \ Proud Australian \_.--._/ | Aurora | Fedora | v -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
