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 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 Project > > > 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. > > Richard > > _______________________________________________ > legal mailing list > [email protected] > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
