Jarod Wilson wrote: > Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>>>>>> "SS" == Simo Sorce <ssorce@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> SS> Not sure if that license is free, to me it stinks, but in any case >> SS> the GFDL is a Documentation License, not a Software License, >> >> I haven't written otherwise. >> >> SS> let's keep apples to apples comparisons, and let's try to not get >> SS> infected by the Debian disease about defining what is software. >> >> We frequently make use of research that the Debian folks have done, >> and anything which is not acceptable to them bears strong scrutiny >> before we consider it acceptable for Fedora. If you wish to >> characterize their efforts as some sort of illness then that's your >> business but please concentrate on reasonable discourse here. > > Yeah, I figured section 4 might be an issue... > > I'm definitely not a lawyer either, and the license isn't optimal, but > what exactly stops us from packaging it? (Not trying to be difficult, > just trying to understand). We'd be packaging it in a way that satisfies > 4a, and users are welcome to modify it once its installed on their > system. Or is the fact that you couldn't change the branding for > redistribution if you wanted to enough to give it the boot? Another thing to consider... How different is this from the Firefox case? -- Jarod Wilson jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
