Bug 419051
Summary: | doc license (OPL) is not using free clauses | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Karsten Wade <kwade> |
Component: | system-config-date | Assignee: | Nils Philippsen <nphilipp> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 8 | CC: | mhideo, tcallawa |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2008-04-07 14:13:20 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 182235, 235706 |
Description
Karsten Wade
2007-12-11 01:00:35 UTC
Nils, can we please get this done this week? *** Bug 419061 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Sorry for the late reply, but I've replaced the online documentation in all my system-config-* tools a while ago with (partially updated) material from the RHEL-5 deployment guide, along with this came a change of the license of the docs to the same as the source code, i.e. GPLv2+. Is that sufficient? Or do we need/want this dual-licensed GPLv2+/OPL w/o restrictions? Mike H.? It is sufficient from a Fedora licensing perspective. Mike H., what's the doc group's stance on this? Suffient from my perspective. Great, I'll close this now. Well, since the bug is against F8, I'll put this into MODIFIED until this is resolved there as well. I think this is mostly an upstream issue, and the F8 boat has sailed. I wouldn't bother updating on F8 unless you're fixing something else, so I'm going to close this again. |