On 06/24/2009 02:22 PM, steve wrote: > Now, I have 2 questions for fedora-legal: > > a. Specific to the last two packages (ldd_pdf and javanotes) -- The > upstream license for both of those specify the license version number > (CC-BY-SA version 2 and 2.5), however, the page that lists acceptable > licenses for Fedora[1] does not provide any version numbers. So, should > I modify the License tag or should the wiki page be updated ? No, you just don't need to specify the version. We only specify the version in the license tag when there is a significant change in compatibility or there are versions of a license which are non-free. In the case of CC-BY-SA, all versions of that license are considered the same, and all are free. Just use: License: CC-BY-SA for all instances of the CC-BY-SA, regardless of versioning. > b. About other CC licensed content -- A lot of the available content is > licensed with the Non-Commercial restriction, which is considered as a > Bad License according to the wiki page on licensing. Why is > non-commercial only restriction considered bad ? ...and is there an > alternative to including this in the official Fedora repository -- for > instance the rpm fusion repository ? Commercial use restrictions make a license non-free, which is why they are not acceptable in Fedora. ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
