Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592579 --- Comment #32 from David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-28 13:55:24 EDT --- After looking further at this, I think that the license is a non-issue. Comment 3 notes that this software uses the QPL. The QPL is, of course, an already-approved FLOSS license. There are only two modifications, and both cannot possibly affect whether or not it's FLOSS: 1. An *additional* permission. If you DON'T release to your program to the general public, you don't have to comply with QPL requirement 6c. ("You must ensure that all modifications included in the machine-executable forms are available under the terms of this license.") Giving ADDITIONAL permissions can't make a FLOSS license non-FLOSS. 2. A choice of venue ("This license is governed by the Laws of France.") I'm not crazy about choice-of-venue clauses, but other FLOSS licenses have them; some even specifically use French jurisdiction (e.g., CeCILL). So that cannot make the software non-FLOSS either. Therefore, this software is FLOSS as well. At least, that's how I see it. Comments welcome! I wish legal had responded, but they *still* haven't, and in this case the answer seems crystal clear. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review