On 26/09/11 12:52, jdd wrote:
Le 26/09/2011 12:40, Ciaran Farrell a écrit :
Just for the record, it looks as though that list of licenses was imported directly from the 'corresponding' Fedora page. Fedora decided (based on the FSF explanation) that the Artistic 1 license is not acceptable.
with some edits. But this page is still under construction (and will stay so until the foundation is up and a legal team review it, so for a long time :-)
no personal advice about artistic licence :-(
The problems that the FSF (and Fedora) identified with the Artistic 1 license certainly are valid - the license is quite vague and there are numerous places where more clarity would be helpful. However, the same is true of many licenses, the FSF's own GPL included. The lack of OSI approval is another issue that I think weighs more heavily against the Artistic 1. As the license appears to be deprecated (and used only in the context of the Perl specific dual license option), I am opposed to allowing its inclusion (but my assessment is that the actual legal risk of including software licensed under the Artistic 1 license is not higher than other similar licenses) and my advice would be to not include it - but from a practical perspective. I am aware that this may cause problems for existing packages... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org