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

Separating licensing policy from packaging guidelines


The packaging committee has clearly defined their role as taking care of how software is being packaged in Fedora and not what is being packaged. What is being packaged is defined by our legal policies which are currently intermixed in different sections along with the packaging guidelines. Several third party repositories have started relying on the Fedora Packaging guidelines but deviate in their licensing policies.

Over a period of time, there are a number of clarifications that might required. Richard M Stallman has pointed out that our guidelines currently either Free software as defined by FSF and Open source software as defined by OSI to be included in Fedora. Some of the OSI certified Open Source licenses are considered non-free by FSF. We need to consider whether we want to slightly change the guidelines to require both Free and Open Source licenses or just Free software licenses. Brett Smith from FSF in a offline discussion pointed that we don't explicitly define the licensing for documentation. We need to make that clear. Alexandre Oliva has pointed out that we don't explicitly promise to provide source code to end users. I think that's a good thing to clarify too.

Splitting up the legal policies from the packaging guidelines in helpful to define the role of Fedora Packaging Committee better and enable different repositories to reuse the packaging guidelines in a easier way Note that I did ask FESCo to look into that and don't think any changes were discussed.

Does this splitting up the legal section into a separate policy document managed by Fedora Project Board sense to folks here? I can present a draft.


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