[fab] Fedora as Free Software?

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 6/12/06, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/12/06, Michael Tiemann <tiemann at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > As FC6 planning continues apace, I'd like to make sure that we don't
> > lose sight of this topic.  Is there any way we can push this forward?
> > It's irritating that we have licenses that are neither free software nor
> > under OSI-approved licenses.  Who is the logical point person for this?
>
>
>
> Ok here is what is out of Fedora development this morning.. hoping that
> the License tag is accurate. There are about 238 packages that need
> 'cleanups' in one form or another.. my counting had to be done by hand
> because style issues.
>
> Total Packages:         1155
> GPL Only:                504
> LGPL Only:               137
> MIT/X11:                 119
> BSD:                      58
> Artistic/GPL:             42
> MIT:                      16
> GPL/LGPL:                 14
> Public Domain:            17
>


Is it worth filing bugs against the 200+ packages that need a cleanup? And
who would formulate a standard Licensing schema for this? [Again is it worth
it.. beyond pub arguments?] In this case (and when I had to document all the
licenses on an RHEL-4 system for ISO-9000), it would have been nice to have
a standard scheme:

GPL version 2 or higher [See /usr/share/LICENSES/GPL_V2]
GPL version 2 ONLY
LGPL version 2 or higher
GPL vers2++/LGPL vers2++
Artistic
Artistic/GPL vers2++
MPL version 1.1

Again this might just be only good for pub arguments.

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20060613/a904cfeb/attachment.htm>