<p>I have not looked at the final draft, but as I understand it the purpose of issuing eupl 1.1 was to make it osi compliant. So it *should* be good now.</p>
<p>Luis</p>
<p><blockquote>On May 29, 2009 9:35 AM, "Caolán McNamara" <<a href="mailto:caolanm@redhat.com">caolanm@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>On this list previously the EUPL v1.0 was considered unacceptable for<br>
Fedora,<br>
(<a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-legal-list@redhat.com/msg00144.html" target="_blank">http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-legal-list@redhat.com/msg00144.html</a>)<br>
<br>
Since then, there is now a EUPL v1.1, <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl" target="_blank">http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl</a><br>
does that fix the problems, or remain unacceptable ?<br>
<br>
Assuming that the EUPL v1.1 remains unacceptable, can someone e.g. dual<br>
licence something as EUPL v1.X and say LGPLv2 in order to make it<br>
acceptable for us.<br>
<br>
C.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Fedora-legal-list mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com">Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com</a><br>
<a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list</a><br>
</blockquote></p>