Re: [Fedora-packaging] Digging up an old dead thread ...
by Tom Callaway
On 06/24/2009 02:22 PM, steve wrote:
> Now, I have 2 questions for fedora-legal:
>
> a. Specific to the last two packages (ldd_pdf and javanotes) -- The
> upstream license for both of those specify the license version number
> (CC-BY-SA version 2 and 2.5), however, the page that lists acceptable
> licenses for Fedora[1] does not provide any version numbers. So, should
> I modify the License tag or should the wiki page be updated ?
No, you just don't need to specify the version. We only specify the
version in the license tag when there is a significant change in
compatibility or there are versions of a license which are non-free. In
the case of CC-BY-SA, all versions of that license are considered the
same, and all are free. Just use:
License: CC-BY-SA
for all instances of the CC-BY-SA, regardless of versioning.
> b. About other CC licensed content -- A lot of the available content is
> licensed with the Non-Commercial restriction, which is considered as a
> Bad License according to the wiki page on licensing. Why is
> non-commercial only restriction considered bad ? ...and is there an
> alternative to including this in the official Fedora repository -- for
> instance the rpm fusion repository ?
Commercial use restrictions make a license non-free, which is why they
are not acceptable in Fedora.
~spot
14 years, 10 months
