Re: [Fedora-legal-list] About Linux Documentation Project License

[Mamoru Tasaka]

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 06/04/2010 01:41 AM +9:00:
>  On 06/01/2010 02:00 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> > Hello:
> >
> > In the review of rubygem-ncursesw
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597709)
> > I noticed that some example files are licensed under "Linux Documentation
> Project License":
> >
> > http://tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html
> >
> > I would appreciate it if it is investigated if this license is acceptable for Fedora
> > or not.
>
>  Yeah. This license is Free (GPL-incompatible, but that doesn't matter
>  much for a documentation license).
>
>  Use:
>
>  License: LDPL 
Well, I must have written a bit more clearer. In this review request (rubygem-ncursesw)
some example ruby codes (i.e. scripts written in ruby), not "documents", are
licensed
under LDPL. How should such case be treated?

(GPL incompatibility doesn't matter for this review. The sample ruby codes actually
  uses rubygem-ncursesw but rubygem-ncursesw is under LGPLv2+)

Regards,
Mamoru