On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 6:03 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:59 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 8:16 AM Jaroslav Skarvada <jskarvad(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:41 AM David Cantrell
<dcantrell(a)redhat.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Back to the original question... what short name do we give this
license?
> > > > >
> > > > > - It has an advertising clause
> > > > > - It forbids relicensing under any form of the GPL (curious what
that
> > > > > means
> > > > > for potential derivative works)
> > > > > - And it has the postcard/QSL card request, sort of like
vim's donation
> > > > > request
> > > > >
> > > > > License: BSD with oddities
> > > > >
> > > > > or
> > > > >
> > > > > License: Difficult
> > > > >
> > > > > ?
> > > >
> > > > It actually has some text in common with the Beer-ware license. At
> > > > least if this is the license of the entire package, or a substantial
> > > > part of it, I would suggest an identifier specific to this license,
> > > > perhaps "Diane Bruce [License]" (if I'm correct that
the
> > > > author/licensor here is the FreeBSD developer Diane Bruce).
> > > >
> > > > Richard
> > >
> > > It seems Debian ships the code with the following license:
> > >
> > > Copyright: (C) Diane Bruce <db(a)FreeBSD.ORG>
> > > License: Permissive
> > >
> > > thanks & regards
> > >
> > > Jaroslav
> >
> > So could anybody authoritatively reply the following questions?
> >
> > 1) Can the code be packaged to Fedora?
>
> Yes, it's a free software, GPL-incompatible license by Fedora's standards.
>
> > 2) How to name the license?
>
> I don't have a good suggestion here (other than my suggestion of
> "Diane Bruce" above). It's unlikely this license would be found
> anywhere else. I found it intriguing that Debian apparently uses the
> label "Permissive", I assume as a catchall for various one-off
> nonstandard noncopyleft FOSS licenses? I don't think that's an
> approach Fedora has attempted to take but it might be worth
> considering.
>
Debian can do that because the debian/copyright file has the license
verbatim in there. And generally debian/copyright files are
machine-parseable, but not guaranteed to be correct.
And more importantly, the license can be viewed before installing the
package, since that data is extracted.
We could go with "Semi-Permissive" and indicate in the docs that
packages with that title have terms in the license file.
Indeed, "Semi-Permissive" is probably better than "Permissive" in this
case.
Richard