https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522 Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #47 from Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller from comment #43) > The policy does not actually state that all licenses has to be approved by > the FSF. It just says that when we considering a license for Fedora we look > at licenses approved by FSF, OSI and Red Hat legal. So in practice these 3 > groups are likely to agree on a license in the vast majority of cases and > thus all current licenses as you say are FSF approved, but the policy does > not state that FSF approval is a hard requirement. At least since ~2008 the policy was not one that required FSF approval (or more precisely FSF designation as a free software license), if only because that would be impractical. However, there has traditionally been an effort to faithfully apply the FSF's own interpretation of the Free Software Definition. In one case I can vaguely remember, Fedora rejected a license as non-free, in the absence of an opinion from the FSF, but the FSF thereafter concluded that the same license was free. (I think this was the Yahoo! Public! License! version 1.0.) This same policy has led to some cases in which an OSI-approved license was rejected by Fedora as non-free, or a license that the OSI never approved was accepted by Fedora as free. I don't think we ever faced a situation in which Fedora accepted a license as free, in the absence of an FSF opinion, and later the FSF concluded that the same license was non-free. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
