Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel-RedHat - Red Hat theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427484 kwade@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kwade@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From kwade@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-18 00:01 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > The main goal here is to allow Red Hat writers and developers to use Fedora as > their main work environment for documentation. Which is, ironically, an argument for freeing Red Hat documentation from the additional OPL restrictions. > The Red Hat documentation uses the above license. The xml & images in this > package is embedded in the books at build time. I thought it easiest to use the > same license to avoid licensing conflicts ... some may read that as "not have to > talk to lawyers" :D The lawyers have already spoken, and thus we have: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing FWIW, we just had a test case of this recently. Several guides that went with system-config-* packages and the PHP Manual were under the OPL with options. The result is the former changed their license, and the PHP Manual is not going to appear in Fedora 9 because upstream did not want to change or dual-license. > I need a license that allows the xml and images to be used in OPL + Restrictions > books. If Red Hat is the original copyright holder, they can dual-license under the OPl without options. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review