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

Re: Fedora websites and licensing



Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 15:10 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
IIRC, part of the question was what license the "code" involved in the website fell under. That is does the css and templates for the websites also fall under the OPL?

Exactly the point of this thread.  The *content* is under the OPL.  The
markup around just the content is probably covered by that OPL.  But the
rest of the site (CSS, Python, TurboGears, HTML, etc.) has not been
licensed.  It is, however, a contribution, so is covered at a minimum by
the CLA.

TurboGears apps are all licensed although not all of them have the license information in all the source files:

Source Headers:
  GPLv2:
    FAS2
    PackageDB
    Bodhi
  GPLv2+:
    smolt: client

One License File for the Project:
  MIT/X11:
    Mirrormanager[1]_
  GPL+:
    smolt: smoon (server)[2]_
    Transifex

[1]_: Helper script under GPLv2
[2]_: smolt client and server are hosted together in the same tarball and repository so the fact that the client has a header explicitly listing GPLv2+ might make the server GPLv2+ as well. The smolt authors would probably be willing to clarify this in any case.

-Toshio


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