Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 (CPAL)

[Russell Harrison]

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-efb930193d6fc665a78c2774f715...

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

[Rahul Sundaram]

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-efb930193d6fc665a78c2774f715...
>  
>  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

[Tom Callaway]

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

[Rahul Sundaram]

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

[Tom Callaway]

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

[Rahul Sundaram]

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

[Tom Callaway]

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