Fedora websites and licensing
Toshio Kuratomi
a.badger at gmail.com
Fri May 23 17:29:12 UTC 2008
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
More information about the fedora-advisory-board
mailing list