[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [fab] [Fwd: What is the mkisofs license?]



Rahul wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
Rahul wrote:
Tom Callaway wrote:

We don't need to analyze Extras for FSF license compliance, IMHO.

The packaging guidelines changes if any would affect both the repositories and the distribution on the whole includes both. Not sure why you would consider excluding Fedora Extras.

AFAIK, no one has proposed/sugggested so far that Fedora's packaging guidelines require FSF license compliance (instead of simply opensource.org ) yet.


https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-April/msg00170.html

I have independently done the same to the board. I would like to know if others support this or not.

Offhand, I'd say -1, status-quo is sufficient. My mind isn't set in stone though... I'm just not yet convinced that there would be sufficient tangible benefit to outweigh the (possible) loss of non-FSF-compliant bits.

-- Rex

-- Rex


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]