On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 07:14 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 12:05 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "RN" == Robin Norwood <rnorwood(a)redhat.com>
writes:
>
> RN> So you may want to update the license field as you go (Not
> RN> blindly, of course...there are probably exceptions).
>
> I think there may be a few modules out there which are Artistic
> _only_, which it seems makes them unacceptable for Fedora. I honestly
> had no clue that the artistic license was considered non-free until
> spot started the recent licensing work.
The fundamental question would be: Is this consideration applicable at
all?
Consider: Most perl packages are scripts and not linked against
anything. They "use" other packages.
So, its only applicable for those items which are only "Artistic" 1.0,
not for anything dual licensed, and not for anything which
Requires/BuildRequires something "Artistic" 1.0.
~spot