[Fedora-legal-list] README.openfwwf license? -- [[PkgWrangler] Review b43-openfwwf-5.2-2.1.el6 (ON_REVIEW) got new comment]

[John W. Linville]

Peter, thanks for the quick reply!

Perhaps fedora-legal can provide useful advice?

John

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 06:31:03PM +0300, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> Hello John!
> 
> 2010/2/25 John W. Linville <linville at redhat.com>:
> > Peter,
> >
> > We are in the process of reviewing packages for RHEL-6.  The review
> > of b43-openfwwf generated the comment below.  Do you have any input?
> 
> I'm sure, that GPL does NOT cover the text of the README, since it
> simply a dump of web-page, and I didn't think they licensed their site
> contents under GPL :)
> 
> > Perhaps README.openfwwf needs to be removed or revised?
> 
> Although, I almost absolutely think that nobody will sue Redhat for
> inclusion of  this text, I think, that properly re-licensing a README
> is a generally good idea. At least we should ask upstream for
> clarification - could you ask someone, who skilled enough in solving
> these boring legal issues? I could contact them by myself, but I'n not
> sure, what should I ask them. To send us e-mail with license
> clarification or to add README (listed below) to their tarball.
> 
> Just for the reference - here is a full text of README
> 
> http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/b43-openfwwf/devel/README.openfwwf?view=co
> 
> -- 
> With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.

-- 
John W. Linville		Linux should be at the core
linville at redhat.com			of your literate lifestyle.