[fab] Fedora as Free Software?

[Michael Tiemann]

As FC6 planning continues apace, I'd like to make sure that we don't
lose sight of this topic.  Is there any way we can push this forward?
It's irritating that we have licenses that are neither free software nor
under OSI-approved licenses.  Who is the logical point person for this?

M

On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 21:57 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 08:08:26PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm wondering what you guys think about changing the tilt of Fedora from
> > > open source to free software.  Namely, saying that the license should
> > > meet the free software definition (
> > >  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ) and then mentioning that
> > > OSI-certified licenses (with the exception of the Reciprocal Public
> > > License, which we're going to reevaluate) are a good list, as well as
> > > the free software licenses that are listed on the FSF website.
> > > 
> > > The goal is to make Fedora a distribution that the FSF can positively
> > > endorse.  I think we're really close.  Any reason to not try to go all
> > > the way?
> > 
> > Do we have an idea of what we would need to drop to be completely free
> > software definition compliant?
> > 
> > What would we lose?
> > 
> > I guess a few rpm queries on license should work.
> > what licenses are we looking for?
> 
> At a glance of Core -devel, the following packages don't have licenses
> that are explicitly on the FSF's list:
> 
> tog-pegasus	       Open Group Pegasus Open Source (motif)
> tog-pegasus-devel      Open Group Pegasus Open Source	
> openmotif	       Open Group Public License	
> openmotif-devel	       Open Group Public License	
> xorg-x11-proto-devel   The Open Group License
> xorg-x11-util-macros   The Open Group License
> 
> jdepend		       Clarkware License
> jdepend-demo	       Clarkware License
> jdepend-javadoc	       Clarkware License
> 
> adaptx		       Exolab Software License
> adaptx-doc	       Exolab Software License
> adaptx-javadoc	       Exolab Software License
> castor		       Exolab Software License
> castor-demo	       Exolab Software License
> castor-doc	       Exolab Software License
> castor-javadoc	       Exolab Software License
> castor-test	       Exolab Software License
> castor-xml	       Exolab Software License
> 
> latex2html   Free To Use But Restricted (See LICENSE)
> 
> tanukiwrapper		 Tanuki Software License (open source)
> tanukiwrapper-demo	 Tanuki Software License (open source)
> tanukiwrapper-javadoc	 Tanuki Software License (open source)
> tanukiwrapper-manual	 Tanuki Software License (open source)
> 
> libc-client		 University of Washington Free-Fork License
> libc-client-devel	 University of Washington Free-Fork License
> 
> xdoclet			 XDoclet Open Source Licence
> xdoclet-javadoc		 XDoclet Open Source Licence
> xdoclet-manual		 XDoclet Open Source Licence
> 
> 
> For that matter, none of these are on the OSI's list either explicitly.
> 
> Then there's all of the "distributable" License tags, and the packages
> marked "various".
> 
> So yes, close, but not a done deal.
> 
> Thanks,
> Matt
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> fedora-advisory-board mailing list
> fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board