[fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected]

[Tom 'spot' Callaway]

On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 09:48 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "TC" == Tom Callaway <Tom> writes:
> 
> TC> While I don't disagree with you, it is unique. I wasn't examining
> TC> what I believe to be free, I was checking our tree against what
> TC> the FSF agrees to be free.
> 
> I would figure the Open Source Definition would apply:
> http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Keep in mind:

I was asked to audit Fedora Core to ensure that everything in Fedora
Core had a Free Software Foundation compatible and approved "Free
license".

Fedora Extras is still using the Open Source Definition to determine
license applicability. If selinux-doc was in Extras, it would be OK.


> The last sentence is troubling because it's not immediately clear what
> satisfies it.  Does merely including a copy of the license as a
> package would normally do suffice?

Probably, along with the notation that some of the included material in
the merged document set was under that license.

> So are anonymous modifications permitted?  It would seem to be overly
> restrictive otherwise.

Probably not, but this is not terribly unusual. See the Linux kernel.

~spot
-- 
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!