On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:31 PM Neal Gompa <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:25 PM Ben Cotton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:20 PM David Cantrell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 01:21:53PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > >It probably should be. > > > > > > Please also add it as an entry in this file: > > > > > > > Let's just stick with Richard's advice on this thread earlier: > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:52 PM Richard Fontana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Anyway, as for Fedora, I think the easiest thing to do here in the > > > short term is to just use "ASL 2.0" and ignore the exception. > > > > -- > > Ben Cotton > > He / Him / His > > Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream > > Red Hat > > TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis > > > > Is that a good idea given that the exception is necessary for GPL > applications to link to CUPS?
The exception is still part of the license; the question is just whether it is a detail that should be reflected in the license metadata. My argument is that most Fedora users probably won't care, and those that do aren't going to rely on license metadata anyway. Also, "ASL 2.0 with exceptions" doesn't tell you what the exception is, anyway (and a Fedora user might not even be sure that the exception is a permissive exception). Richard _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
