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.
Regards, Mamoru
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 03:00 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
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.
I would describe it as a free copyleft license, where a requirement to provide the source form can be added in derivative works. (Note that the parts that are only requests can be ignored.) I expect it to be fine for Fedora, but I'm not the one to actually make the decision.
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
~spot
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
On 06/03/2010 02:50 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
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+)
Still okay, just be sure to mark the licenses appropriately.
~spot
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 06/04/2010 04:02 AM +9:00:
On 06/03/2010 02:50 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
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+)
Still okay, just be sure to mark the licenses appropriately.
~spot
Okay, thank you.
Mamoru