On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 23:03 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
> > >>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway <Tom> writes:
> > TC> Given that it does not give permission for us to redistribute (the
> > TC> cornerstone requirement for Content licenses), this license is not
> > TC> acceptable for Fedora.
> > I guess I'm glad I looked before approving the package, but I have to
> > wonder: Do the cacert folks actually want anyone to use their
> > certificates? I mean, this prevents basically everyone from using
> > them, because they can't come with the OS or the browser.
> Personally, the more I read the document, the more I'm confused.
> "You may NOT distribute certificates or root keys under this
> licence"... does this mean we can distribute under a different license?
Well, sortof. The wording here is strange because you can get a
different license from the CA issuer. We can't just pick a license, but
the CA issuer might be willing to give us a different one.
> Would it be worth getting in contact with CAcert.org in order to try
> and have them allow us to redistribute the root certs under conditions
> which are acceptable to the Fedora Project?
Probably, yes. :)
We are currently working on the project, openprops
Basically, it is just extension to .properties of OpenJDK,
whose license is
their FSF address have not been updated
What should we do for license file for openprops?
Shall we copy the Openjdk license file as-is,
or we just update the FSF address,
or we can use our name in the "Classpath" Exception?
The proposed diff is
DID: +61 7 3514 8239
Red Hat, Asia-Pacific Pty Ltd
Level 1, 193 North Quay
Office: +61 7 3514 8100
Fax: +61 7 3514 8199
Red Hat, Inc.
Facebook: Red Hat APAC | Red Hat Japan | Red Hat Korea | JBoss APAC
Twitter: Red Hat APAC | Red Hat ANZ
LinkedIn: Red Hat APAC | JBoss APAC