[Fedora-legal-list] About Linux Documentation Project License
mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Thu Jun 3 19:39:04 UTC 2010
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 06/04/2010 04:02 AM +9:00:
> On 06/03/2010 02:50 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 06/04/2010 01:41 AM +9:00:
>>> On 06/01/2010 02:00 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>>>> In the review of rubygem-ncursesw (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597709)
>>>> I noticed that some example files are licensed under "Linux Documentation Project License":
>>>> I would appreciate it if it is investigated if this license is acceptable for Fedora
>>>> or not.
>>> Yeah. This license is Free (GPL-incompatible, but that doesn't matter
>>> much for a documentation license).
>>> License: LDPL
>> Well, I must have written a bit more clearer. In this review request (rubygem-ncursesw)
>> some example ruby codes (i.e. scripts written in ruby), not "documents", are licensed
>> under LDPL. How should such case be treated?
>> (GPL incompatibility doesn't matter for this review. The sample ruby codes actually
>> uses rubygem-ncursesw but rubygem-ncursesw is under LGPLv2+)
> Still okay, just be sure to mark the licenses appropriately.
Okay, thank you.
More information about the legal