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

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> 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
> 

Open is soooo 1900's. Freedom. For All.

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip