[fab] [Fwd: What is the mkisofs license?]
Rex Dieter
rdieter at math.unl.edu
Mon Aug 14 17:38:15 UTC 2006
Rahul wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Rahul wrote:
>>> Tom Callaway wrote:
>>
>>>> We don't need to analyze Extras for FSF license compliance, IMHO.
>>
>>> The packaging guidelines changes if any would affect both the
>>> repositories and the distribution on the whole includes both. Not
>>> sure why you would consider excluding Fedora Extras.
>>
>> AFAIK, no one has proposed/sugggested so far that Fedora's packaging
>> guidelines require FSF license compliance (instead of simply
>> opensource.org ) yet.
>>
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-April/msg00170.html
>
>
> I have independently done the same to the board. I would like to know if
> others support this or not.
Offhand, I'd say -1, status-quo is sufficient. My mind isn't set in
stone though... I'm just not yet convinced that there would be
sufficient tangible benefit to outweigh the (possible) loss of
non-FSF-compliant bits.
-- Rex
-- Rex
More information about the advisory-board
mailing list