Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) is approved for use
in Fedora, but as a documentation license. Can software code
licensed under CC-BY be included in Fedora?
On 11/13/2012 06:07 AM, Jaromir Capik wrote:
> We've been told, that Fedora and RHEL RPMs differ
> in the licensing so that RHEL RPM specs should have
> listed licenses for binary and source packages, whilst
> the Fedora RPM specs should have listed licenses for
> binary packages only.
> Is that right?
> In fact we're redistributing the sources in form of SRPMs
> and that's why I see this only as a matter
> of our choice/policy/approach.
> Please, let me know if you could send us any statement
> about that, since we're already getting quite confused.
I can't comment on RHEL policies, but I do not believe there is a way to
indicate the License tag for a SRPM in a way that is different from the
binary RPMs (whereas, it is possible to indicate a different License tag
for each binary subpackage).
I do not see the value in listing the licenses for source files which
are not in the binary RPMs. If RPM supported a "SRPMLicense" field, then
we could be more complete there, but right now, it does not (AFAIK).
Just need some clarification in human language since I'm seeing more and
more stuff being copyrighted in our infrastructure, the footer on
http://paste.stg.fedoraproject.org which does not have a content clause
if I would paste into it would then Sayak Banerjee, 2012 Red Hat, Inc.
and others own what I pasted?
----- Forwarded message from Amos Blanton <amos(a)scratch.mit.edu> -----
> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 14:43:47 -0500
> From: Amos Blanton <amos(a)scratch.mit.edu>
> To: Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
> Subject: Re: [Scratch] scratch gpl licensing -- combining with apache, and
> gpl v3
> Thanks for writing about this. These licensing issues are really
> unfortunate, because they take so much time and energy to resolve.
> We first looked at re-releasing under the GPL v3, but the MIT Technology
> Licensing Office doesn't allow the use of the GPL v3 because of patent
> clauses they cannot accept.
> However, we've since spoken with an intellectual property lawyer about
> this, and their interpretation is that the Scratch image is an aggregation
> of the Squeak interpreter's virtual machine, under the Squeak license, and
> Scratch, a separate work that requires the Squeak virtual machine. So the
> license status of the two works is independent: the Squeak license for the
> VM, and Scratch under GPL v2.
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 10:09:37AM -0400, Amos Blanton wrote:
> > > Thanks for your efforts getting Scratch into Fedora.
> > > We're looking into this and hope to get back to you soon.
> > Hi Amos. Not to harass, because I know these things take time, but I wonder
> > if you have an update? Thanks!
> > --
> > Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
----- End forwarded message -----
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>