Fwd: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Licensing guidelines suggestions

[Tom "spot" Callaway]

On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 19:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 18:59 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >>> Below is some discussion about Fedora licensing that took place on 
> >>> fedora-packaging to day, perhaps the board could put it on the meeting 
> >>> agenda?
> >> What was the original reason why it was deemed bad?
> > 
> > The original Artistic license is far too vague, the intent is not clear.
> > Upstream perl agreed, redid the license and made a 2.0 version, which is
> > free & GPL compat.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, nothing will use Artistic 2.0 until perl6.
> 
> Since you aren't relying solely on OSI requirement why not drop it and 
> point to the licensing wiki page as the canonical list in 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines?

That's not the question that needs answering.

The question is:

There are licenses which are on the OSI approved list but which are
considered non-free by the FSF. Are these licenses OK for Fedora or not?

~spot