Limiting ourselves to copyright (ignoring patents and trademarks and
other IP), in general would you say a copyright license must either?
1. Be "Free" according to FSF: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
2. Be "Open Source" according to OSI: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
If yes, I have three more questions:
a. What is currently the most restrictive license in Fedora that
satisfies either of those definitions?
b. What is currently the least restrictive license in Fedora that
satisfies either of those?
c. Are there any examples of Fedora-acceptable licenses that do not
satisfy either of those definitions?
I'm curious to know the limits of open source licenses: what might
theoretically be the maximum and minimum (in terms of restrictions and
conditions) that fall in the "open source" category of copyright
licenses. Do these hypothetical boundary licenses already exist, e.g.
can we get more restrictive than some kind of GPLv2/Knuth hybrid, and
can we get less restrictive than 2-clause BSD-with-disclaimers?
I'm presuming those BSD disclaimers actually make it less restrictive
than public domain, since these disclaimers seem to remove some
possible default restrictions.
Very tired... saw the 10:30PM - 1:15AM avatar showing last night, and
I have kids (early mornings)! So this email probably makes no sense.
I apologize for that.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com>
On 01/06/2010 08:10 PM, Michal Ambroz wrote:
> Hello dear list members,
> I would like to ask whether the amap license and amap program itself would be
eligible to be included in the Fedora.
> Tool is opensource with license based on GPLv2 with additional restrictions, but I am
not sure whether it is free enough
> to create amap package for Fedora.
Unfortunately, the amap license is non-free. The additional restrictions
make it non-free (not to mention that they clearly conflict with the GPLv2).
It is not acceptable for inclusion in Fedora under that license.
Fedora-legal-list mailing list