On Monday 06 August 2007, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 23:05 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Here's a few notes/questions that IMO need to be addressed in the new > > licensing guidelines in Wiki. IANAL, etc, but anyway, something for near > > future FPC meetings (which I still probably won't be able to attend to > > for a couple of weeks): > > > > 1) The licensing pages strongly imply that OSI-approved licenses are ok. > > However for example the original Artistic license is OSI-approved but > > listed in Wiki page as "bad". Something needs real fixing - "ask > > upstream to move to a "good" Artistic license" is IMO just a band aid. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php > > I think we're going to need the Fedora Board to decide this. Its a > little outside of our jurisdiction, unfortunately. Ok, I'll forward the question to fab-list, hopefully they'll pick this up. [...] > > 3) Source licenses are not the only thing that affect the distributables' > > copyrights. For example when something is built from let's say LGPLv2+ > > sources but linked with a GPLv2+ library, the resulting binary will be > > GPLv2+, while the sources are still LGPLv2+ (unless their embedded > > copyright notices are changed to GPLv2+, but that can't be done for many > > *GPL licenses). (Meant to say "... but that can't be done for many non-*GPL licenses.") > > Suggested combined fix for 2) and 3) above: change the licensing > > guidelines to prominently note something like that the value of the > > License tag represents the copyright/license info of binary packages > > only, and only when built in the configuration specified by the Fedora > > build system, build > > dependencies/conflicts in the specfile, and no non-Fedora software > > installed that will affect the build in any way. Source rpms' copyrights > > are determined by the sources and other content included in them. > > This seems fine to me. I'll work on drafting a change for vote. Thanks. You can count me as +1 if the exact text to be voted on won't differ drastically from the above. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
