Tom 'spot' Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > As part of our ongoing committment to Open Source, Fedora Extras is > undergoing a license audit of the packages contained within it. We do > this for several reasons: > > 1. To ensure that we don't have any packages containing licenses that do > not meet the Fedora licensing standards. Humm... > 2. To ensure that the license tag for Fedora packages is accurate (even > though it is by no means legally binding). So, so... > 3. To get rid of things like "BSD-ish" and "Distributable" wherever > possible. Any list of acceptable licenses? Or a standard way to list "License is OK, look at..."? > 4. Because we like pain. It hurts, sooo good. Yess!! [...] > Sound like fun? Well, no. But it is something that we do need volunteers > to help with. So, if you're interested in taking on this challenge, let > me know. The more people we can get to help in this task, the quicker it > will be completed. We have about 2550 source packages to check. How are you proposing to split this up? 237 people telling you GCC is OK helps very little... Any requisites applicants have to fullfill? I.e., I could take a look at some packages, but I'm not blessed into Fedora in any way (just slightly soft in the head, running rawhide ;-) -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
