The Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 is listed in the Unknown Licenses section of the Licensing page on the Fedora Project wiki.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-efb930193d6fc665a78c2774f715c6f...
I think the OpenProj project management application would make an excelent addition to the Fedora repos but I'm not sure its licence is compatable with the Fedora packaging policies.
http://openproj.org/openproj http://projity.com/license/index.html
Has this license been evaluated by the Fedora team, and if so what was the outcome of that evaluation?
Thanks, Russell Harrison
Russell Harrison wrote:
The Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 is listed in the Unknown Licenses section of the Licensing page on the Fedora Project wiki.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-efb930193d6fc665a78c2774f715c6f...
I think the OpenProj project management application would make an excelent addition to the Fedora repos but I'm not sure its licence is compatable with the Fedora packaging policies.
http://openproj.org/openproj http://projity.com/license/index.html
Has this license been evaluated by the Fedora team, and if so what was the outcome of that evaluation?
IIRC, I asked about this license precisely for the same software and it is still being evaluated by FSF. So the status is unknown and documented as such.
Rahul
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 03:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
IIRC, I asked about this license precisely for the same software and it is still being evaluated by FSF. So the status is unknown and documented as such.
I asked for a status update on this one.
~spot
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 03:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
IIRC, I asked about this license precisely for the same software and it is still being evaluated by FSF. So the status is unknown and documented as such.
I asked for a status update on this one.
Thanks. Would marking such licenses as "Waiting on FSF" or something more specific make it better than "Unknown" ?
Rahul
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 03:34 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 03:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
IIRC, I asked about this license precisely for the same software and it is still being evaluated by FSF. So the status is unknown and documented as such.
I asked for a status update on this one.
Thanks. Would marking such licenses as "Waiting on FSF" or something more specific make it better than "Unknown" ?
Well, they're not all waiting on FSF. Most of them are, but not all.
~spot
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 03:34 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 03:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
IIRC, I asked about this license precisely for the same software and it is still being evaluated by FSF. So the status is unknown and documented as such.
I asked for a status update on this one.
Thanks. Would marking such licenses as "Waiting on FSF" or something more specific make it better than "Unknown" ?
Well, they're not all waiting on FSF. Most of them are, but not all.
Precisely why I said "Waiting on FSF" or something more specific in more useful than "Unknown". If it is waiting on someone else like Red Hat Legal, mark it as such for more transparency. That would give people who are looking for updates on the licensing page more information which is always a good thing.
Rahul
On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 17:57 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 03:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
IIRC, I asked about this license precisely for the same software and it is still being evaluated by FSF. So the status is unknown and documented as such.
I asked for a status update on this one.
This one is Free, but GPLv2/v3 incompatible. Use:
License: CPAL
~spot
-
Rahul Sundaram -
Russell Harrison -
Tom Callaway