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

Re: Re: Definition of Open Source [was Re: pine: UW permission to distribute]



On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:02:29 +0200, Leonard den Ottolander
<leonard den ottolander nl> wrote:
> What needs to be avoided is that such software is mixed with free
> software in the repository.

I have a whole laundry list of policy questions regarding how to deal
with non-free software.

What licensing terms are allowable in Core? Which are excluded based
on informed legal
opinion considering liability compared to being excluded based on policy?

What licensing terms are allowable in Extras? Which are excluded based
on informed legal opinion considering liability compared to excluded
based on policy?

Can Fedora host or maintain a non-free repository? Is it worth it or
does it detract from the Core objectives?

Is there a way that Fedora Core can advertise or encourage the use of
add-on repositories that have less restrictive policy regarding
licensing? What are the legal liability constraints? Can Fedora
leadership lay down guidelines that add-on repositories can choose to
abide by that make legal liability issues involving things like
linking a non-issue? I'm thinking guidelines involving how an addon's
repository and website are structured so that murky issues about DMCA
styled linking lawsuits can be avoided, but fedora can still point
people to addon repos that technically act as a non-free repository.

-jef



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