actions to OPL

[Paul W. Frields]

On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 16:13 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 00:00 +0000, Stuart Ellis wrote:
> 
> > Sorry to keep harping on about communication, but there is a track
> > record of stuff being done without enough communication, and causing
> > unnecessary confusion, misunderstanding, and ill-feeling. I'd like to
> > avoid all that, if it can be done.
> 
> You are right.
> 
> How are these steps now?
> 
> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Licensing/StepsToOPL
> 
> I am about to ask for a vetting from the Foundation board et al.  I want
> their input on the FAQ -before- we make it widely known.

BTW -- who are the board members?  I hear the board mentioned often but
can't find a record of the people involved.

> One reason we are doing this discussion on IRC with logs and first here
> is to start the attention small, but grow it rapidly.  It's working so
> far, I'm feeling almost ready to face the f-docs-l with this. :)

With FC5t3 and final creeping up on us, the sooner we can get this done
the better.  Any released packages have to have the license noted in the
spec file, and OPL doesn't appear on the approved list in Extras yet.
As soon as Elliot gets the f-docs-l on Bugzilla, I'll ask Ville Skytta
to get rpmlint fixed to accept OPL (another small speed hump on the road
to Extras).


-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-dsco-list/attachments/20060207/88e37f5c/attachment.sig>