GPL and LGPL not acceptable for Fedora!

[Harald Hoyer]

Harald Hoyer schrieb:
> Colin Walters schrieb:
>> However, I was fairly sure there had to already be something open 
>> source out there to use as a start.  My initial googling wasn't too 
>> successful (a lot of things called licenses), but then I had the 
>> bright idea to add "Debian" to my search.  Turns out there's a license 
>> analyzing script in 
> ...
> s.th. like the attached perl script might be a start..
> is there a public fedora cvs where I can check that in, so that it can 
> be extended?
> btw, I'm not perl guru, don't expect nice code..

ok, with the attached perl script, I quickly spotted for my packages:

initscripts:
Found Licenses: GPLv2, GPL (no version mentioned), GPLv2+

What makes that? GPLv2 ??


cdrkit:
Found Licenses: LGPLv2+, GPLv2, GPL (no version mentioned), LGPLv2.1+, GPLv2+,

What makes that? GPLv2 ??


nmap:
Found Licenses: LGPLv2+, BSD (no advertise clause), GPLv2, BSD (with advertise clause, not GPL conform), GPLv2+

uhh, bad one...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: checklicense.pl
Type: application/x-perl
Size: 8702 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20070817/0700a877/attachment-0004.bin 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3623 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20070817/0700a877/attachment-0005.bin