Dennis Gilmore wrote:
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.
What is wrong with this license?? There are a lot of other packages out
there both in Core and Extras with licenses not on the mentioned list,
once again the guidelines mention these 3 list as CLARIFICATION, not as
a list of the only permitted ones, this is not a black and white
situation. I challenge you to please tell me whats wrong with the
crystal stacker license from a freedom POV. Fedora is all about Freedom,
restriciting the software which can go on to only that with licenses on
a few stupid lists restricts Freedom and thus is bad, <period> .
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
Here in the Netherlands we have a saying: "Being holier then the pope"
since Debian (main / base) is Free software only in an extreme way
(think removing all firmware from the distro, think no gfdl licensed
docs) I think that what Debian does, does matter, if we start being
holier then Debian then we are doing something wrong, again lets be
pragmatic
Regards,
Hans
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
