[fab] Re: Licensing audit for Fedora Extras

[Karsten Wade]

On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 16:44 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 12:18 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > 
> > For all packages that i) Fedora is the upstream[1] and ii) provide
> > content in /usr/share/doc, we need to ensure that:
> > 
> > a. The content is licensed under the OPL only, and
> > b. The OPL is used without restrictions
> 
> Um... why?

Because the only open source license Fedora uses for
content/documentation is the OPL without options.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Licensing/FAQ

When we did the relicensing earlier this year, we forgot to check
packages where we are the upstream.

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor    ^     Fedora Documentation Project 
 Sr. Developer Relations Mgr.     |  fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
   quaid.108.redhat.com           |          gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20061206/2a46ae7c/attachment.bin