Re: Fedora License List Review
|
J Lovejoy
Hi all, For purposes of the meeting, let’s discuss some of the Fedora licenses we had tagged to add, but have questions - 3 below A few items that we tagged as “needs further review” or I had a question about: - Abstyles - we queued that one. Let’s make a decision. Also need to consider if this license needs a template for matching purposes - Crossword License - we are going to add this, but I have a question as to whether it needs a template for matching purposes - Copyright Attribution Only - I’d agree we shouldn’t add this. there are so many variations of these one-liners, I'd agree it's probably better captured via the Lic-Ref function in the spec There are other licenses that we might was to get more info about from Fedora, I’ve started a list of those here: Licenses that we should communicate with Fedora about: The following licenses we decided not to add to the SPDX License List. I added a note that we might want to get further info from Fedora about usage and variations before making that final call. I highlighted the note section in green so we’d remember. - BeOpen Open Source License Agreement Version 1 - Bibtex License - Borceux license - BSD License (original) - need to check with Fedora if this is considered specific to UC Regents or if it could contain any copyright holder’s name, which will impact which SPDX License List short identifier it is equivalent to. - Crystal Stacker License - license on Fedora page does not match (exactly) that found in v1.5 download. also, there appears to be two different variations of a license in the download (I sent an email about this previously, need to find). Should ask Fedora about these variations … more to add to the ‘ask Fedora’ list, but perhaps we should just wait until we’ve gotten through the whole list? Jilayne On Feb 20, 2014, at 2:47 PM, zwhite@... wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|