Thanks for clarification!
It would be still nice to have it explicitly documented somewhere, consider
this as feature request.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:13 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com>
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 05:50:47PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 05:46:31PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > I'd suggest using that text but with 'Copyright <YEAR> Fedora
> > Authors' and just use something relevant for the year.
> Could we change the example MIT license in the wiki to say that,
> instead of the current random example?
I don't see why not. Also in recent releases of Fedora the LICENSE
file installed by the fedora-release package actually contains the
text of the MIT license with 'Copyright <YEAR> Fedora Project
Authors', which I'd forgotten about until a few minutes ago. That is
supposed to cover the Fedora compilation and explicitly "does not
supersede the licenses of code and content contained in Fedora" (see
Fedora-Legal-README.txt, which goes on to reference the legal
guidelines in the wiki). The choice of the MIT license there was
influenced by the earlier use of the MIT license in the Fedora Project
Contributor Agreement, I suppose.
BTW the example in the wiki isn't random, but was taken from Expat,
which I believe was one of the oldest projects to use the precise
wording of what's now called the MIT license in the strictest sense.
legal mailing list