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(a)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.openfw...
--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
--
John W. Linville Linux should be at the core
linville(a)redhat.com of your literate lifestyle.