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

Re: [fab] Re: Licensing audit for Fedora Extras



On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 09:49 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 16:44 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 12:18 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > > 
> > > For all packages that i) Fedora is the upstream[1] and ii) provide
> > > content in /usr/share/doc, we need to ensure that:
> > > 
> > > a. The content is licensed under the OPL only, and
> > > b. The OPL is used without restrictions
> > 
> > Um... why?
> 
> Because the only open source license Fedora uses for
> content/documentation is the OPL without options.
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Licensing/FAQ
> 
> When we did the relicensing earlier this year, we forgot to check
> packages where we are the upstream.

Ah, I had misread your original email and thought you meant that OPL was
the license that had to be used for the entire package, not just the
content under /usr/share/doc.  Sorry for the noise.

josh


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