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

Re: Licensing guidelines changes



Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 22:27 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
Today, FESCo ratified a new policy for handling the License tag inside
of package spec files.

You can read the new Licensing Guidelines here:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines

What does this mean for Fedora package maintainers? It means that you're
going to need to do a little bit of work. We want F8 packages to have
the correct license tag before we release F8.

Okay, 2 more questions:

1: Currently the short for "zlib License" is just zlib. However most current zlib licensed packages currently contain the following as License tag: "zlib/libpng License" as that is what rpmlint wants. Changing all these tags merely because someone thought zlib would be more descriptive feels very wrong. I'm all for one standard for this. But why deviate from the table in rpmlint, a tool long used for reviews, in cases where this isn't necessary. Also I believe that no matter whats gets choisen as short form the long one should be "zlib/libpng License" and not just "zlib License", as now a days its most often refered to as the "zlib/libpng License" see for example:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php

We've actually fixed rpmlint to match the new license table. :)

I'll update the long name to be "zlib/libpng License".

Erm, in response to the second part of my question:

> I have some questions missing from the QA part you posted. What about
> freely redistributable but not modifiable contect, does that get:
> "Freely redistributable without restriction"
> or:
> "Redistributable, no modification permitted"
>
> And since content and firmware AFAIK are sort of the same exception,
> shouldn't these 2 be made more consisty, and shouldn't the latter thus be:
> "Freely redistributable without restriction, no modification permitted" ?
>

You wrote, you kept "Redistributable, no modification permitted" the same to avoid churn, the why not also keep "zlib/libpng License" as "zlib/libpng License" to avoid churn? It isn't all that important since we will need a mass rebuild anyways, but I still wonder.

2: Why aren't the ND variants of the CC licenses allowed for content?

Quoting from:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-8be956fd12dbe4ae927e65c989e7e83b9fcc0b80
'In this case, the gamedata files can be packaged and included in Fedora, as long as the files meet the requirements for binary firmware.'

And then quoting from:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-adf31c383612aac313719f7b4f8167b7dcf245d2
'The License tag for any firmware that disallows modification should be set to: "Redistributable, no modification permitted"'

On basis of this the Games SIG has long been reviewing and approving game datafiles which lack permission to modify. Especially for for example music it is quite common for the artist to say: "You may do with this as you want, but you may not modify it, I made it and to me it is perfect as it is, so either take it as it is, or leave it".

Its an oversight, I'll amend it now. Thanks for pointing that out.


I'm glad to hear that.

Regards,

Hans


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