You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The top-level LICENSE file is the Artistic License, and the top-level README.md file just says "This program is free software, you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the Artistic License version 2.0."
However, both the repo and the tarball distributions include two files that are not under the Artistic License - the AMQP specs in share/. The 0.8 spec is not freely licensed at all, which is a problem for distributions with strict licensing policies: in Fedora we actually have to ship a modified tarball with this file stripped out. The 0.9.1 extended spec is freely licensed, but not under the Artistic license - it is under a BSD-style license.
It'd be ideal for Fedora if the 0.8 spec was dropped and replaced with simply a reference to a URL in the README or something, as then we wouldn't have to modify the tarball every time. For the 0.9.1 extended spec, it'd be useful to add a line to the README explaining it is not under Artistic.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The top-level
LICENSE
file is the Artistic License, and the top-levelREADME.md
file just says "This program is free software, you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the Artistic License version 2.0."However, both the repo and the tarball distributions include two files that are not under the Artistic License - the AMQP specs in
share/
. The 0.8 spec is not freely licensed at all, which is a problem for distributions with strict licensing policies: in Fedora we actually have to ship a modified tarball with this file stripped out. The 0.9.1 extended spec is freely licensed, but not under the Artistic license - it is under a BSD-style license.It'd be ideal for Fedora if the 0.8 spec was dropped and replaced with simply a reference to a URL in the
README
or something, as then we wouldn't have to modify the tarball every time. For the 0.9.1 extended spec, it'd be useful to add a line to theREADME
explaining it is not under Artistic.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: