Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Monday 06 August 2007, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 23:05 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Here's a few notes/questions that IMO need to be addressed in the new
>>> licensing guidelines in Wiki. IANAL, etc, but anyway, something for
>>> near
>>> future FPC meetings (which I still probably won't be able to attend to
>>> for a couple of weeks):
>>>
>>> 1) The licensing pages strongly imply that OSI-approved licenses are
>>> ok.
>>> However for example the original Artistic license is OSI-approved but
>>> listed in Wiki page as "bad". Something needs real fixing -
"ask
>>> upstream to move to a "good" Artistic license" is IMO just a
band aid.
>>>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
>>>
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php
>> I think we're going to need the Fedora Board to decide this. Its a
>> little outside of our jurisdiction, unfortunately.
>
> Ok, I'll forward the question to fab-list, hopefully they'll pick this
> up.
I'll be waiting for a resolution of this before updating most of my perl
module packages - depending on the result, the "same as perl" licensed
modules may be "GPL+" or "GPL+ or Artistic". I favour the latter
personally as that's what the upstream authors intended.
I've been working my way through my packages, updating the license
fields as appropriate. I just came across perl-Tie-EncryptedHash, which
is under the Artistic license (only). If this is not an acceptable
license, the package will have to go, and so will perl-Crypt-RSA (which
depends on it) and anything else that depends on that.
Paul.