Paul Howarth wrote:
Ville Skyttä wrote:
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.
I'll be waiting for a resolution of this before updating most of my perl
module packages - depending on the result, the "same as perl" licensed
modules may be "GPL+" or "GPL+ or Artistic". I favour the latter
personally as that's what the upstream authors intended.
I've been working my way through my packages, updating the license
fields as appropriate. I just came across perl-Tie-EncryptedHash, which
is under the Artistic license (only). If this is not an acceptable
license, the package will have to go, and so will perl-Crypt-RSA (which
depends on it) and anything else that depends on that.
Paul.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
