> Hi Jim and Everyone, > > On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 10:58 AM Jim Hall <jh...@freedos.org> wrote: > [..] > > *If you agree or disagree, I'd appreciate your reply to this email. > Agreement can be simply "agree" or "+1". If you disagree, please > discuss. (But consensus from the last discussion favored including > FDNET, so if no one disagrees now, I'll assume no concerns on this.) >
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 3:55 AM Jerome Shidel <jer...@shidel.net> wrote: > > The items you mention definitely help resolve many of the issues with the > FDNet Package. But unfortunately, I don’t think they address the issues that > triggered the package being pulled on 4/10/21. > > Please refer to that message from Michael Brutman > https://sourceforge.net/p/freedos/mailman/message/37259659/ and my immediate > followup response https://sourceforge.net/p/freedos/mailman/message/37259690/ > . > > I’m no lawyer. But, I think adding to your resolution list: > > (4) Change the FDNet package metadata to reflect all the various open source > licenses used by the programs included in the FDNet packages instead of just > the copying-policy for FDNet itself. In other words, have it say “Various > open source licenses, see included programs” instead of just “GPL V2”. > > I think that would be sufficient to comply with the messages I referred to > earlier. After all, FDNet itself is only a script and does not get compiled > or include any source code from programs themselves. And like a Linux > distribution, programs of various and even incompatible licenses may be > included in the distribution under certain restrictions. >[..] I agree, let's add: 4. update the metadata to "Various open source licenses, see included programs" or some other generic term to indicate the mix Jim _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
