I understand there are a few types of CC BY SA 3.0 license, ported and
Which do we want to use when relicening all Fedora content and as our
default license choice (for now)? Or is it really a three-way choice?
1. Ported only
2. Unported only
3. Ported where it exists, otherwise unported
Thanks - Karsten
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener
Dear Fedora Legal,
I'd like to push fwsnort into Fedora, but I'm afraid there might be problem
with snort TM.
I have contacted fwsnort upstream and I was told they didn't have any approval
from Sourcefire Marketing. But there are more projects that use term snort on
freshmeat.net. Snort is released under GPL. fwsnort doesn't use any VRT
licensed Snort rules and fwsnort had probably existed before snort TM.
Could you please help me to clean up this issue. thnx.
On 06/22/2009 01:53 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> This entry was added to the fonts SIG wishlist today. Can someone tell
> me if the licensing acceptable for Fedora?
Sorry, but that license is non-free.
have any of you seen the site www.fedoraos.org ? Is this sanctioned ? He
is asking people for donations for Fedora!
Be nice, if somebody could look into this.
Tristan Santore BSc MBCS
Network and Infrastructure Operations
For Fedora related issues email:
during a package review I have found another BSD/MIT license issue for
which I'd like to get some advice:
The package "ewl" from the enlightenment project contains a COPYING file
 which looks much more similar to an MIT license then to a BSD license.
However, the spec file which is included in the upstream tarball
explicitly states BSD.
In various discussions on their mailing list "E-devel" the developers
also usually refer only to the BSD license (e.g. ).
Any help is appreciated!