On 16.10.2007 21:16, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 20:06 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> Even further: I would like to see it clarified, as I'm involved with >> other repos as well that sometimes use Fedora spec files. > As just reported to fedora-advisory-board in the minutes, here is the > bit from last week's Board meeting: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2007-10-09#Spec_File_Licenses > Does that answer all open questions on the topic? [...]
No. If I want to open a Fedora- oder EPEL-competitor-repo tomorrow I still can't be sure that nobody sues me when I take the Fedora spec files as base for it, as it's not written down under what terms precisely the spec files are available and reusable by other parties. IOW: IANAL, but "Red Hat Legal says they should be as open and licensed just like everything else" and '# Choice of license is either "same as the package itself" or something extremely permissive like MIT/X11.' doesn't sound like somethign that's legally binding. The Board needs to say and write down "all spec files that don't mention what they are licensed as are licensed under the MIT/X11 license." -- project contributers gave Red Hat / the Board the power to do something like that afaik. CU knurd _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
