I wrote:
> Bug #560181 correctly points out that although mysql's code
is
> distributed under GPL, the associated documentation is not.
> The reporter proposes classifying it as "Redistributable, no
> modification permitted", but I thought I'd ask this list about
> opinions on the best license tag for it. The doc license looks
> like this:
>
> Copyright 1997-2008 MySQL AB, 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
> This documentation is NOT distributed under a GPL license. Use of this
> documentation is subject to the following terms: You may create a
> printed copy of this documentation solely for your own personal use.
> Conversion to other formats is allowed as long as the actual content is
> not altered or edited in any way. You shall not publish or distribute
> this documentation in any form or on any media, except if you
> distribute the documentation in a manner similar to how Sun
> disseminates it (that is, electronically for download on a Web site
> with the software) or on a CD-ROM or similar medium, provided however
> that the documentation is disseminated together with the software on
> the same medium. Any other use, such as any dissemination of printed
> copies or use of this documentation, in whole or in part, in another
> publication, requires the prior written consent from an authorized
> representative of Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sun Microsystems, Inc. and
> MySQL AB reserve any and all rights to this documentation not expressly
> granted above.
to which Richard Fontana replied:
These terms seem not to satisfy current Fedora licensing guidelines,
if I'm not mistaken. Spot?
Ping? I'm not sure if the above constitutes a final decision or not.
If it does, must I edit the tarball to remove the offending file, or is
it sufficient to not install it?
regards, tom lane