While checking the contents of our `perl' package, I noticed the following:
/* NOTE: this is derived from Henry Spencer's regexp code, and should not
* confused with the original package (see point 3 below). Thanks, Henry!
/* Additional note: this code is very heavily munged from Henry's version
* in places. In some spots I've traded clarity for efficiency, so don't
* blame Henry for some of the lack of readability.
/* The names of the functions have been changed from regcomp and
* regexec to pregcomp and pregexec in order to avoid conflicts
* with the POSIX routines of the same names.
* pregcomp and pregexec -- regsub and regerror are not used in perl
* Copyright (c) 1986 by University of Toronto.
* Written by Henry Spencer. Not derived from licensed software.
* Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any
* purpose on any computer system, and to redistribute it freely,
* subject to the following restrictions:
* 1. The author is not responsible for the consequences of use of
* this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise
* from defects in it.
* 2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either
* by explicit claim or by omission.
* 3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not
* be misrepresented as being the original software.
**** Alterations to Henry's code are...
**** Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
**** 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
**** by Larry Wall and others
**** You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
**** License or the Artistic License, as specified in the README file.
You can see the whole file here:
I looked but couldn't find any common name for this license
of Henry's. Is it on our list? Is it free? What name should
I use in the License tag?
I was looking upstream at a new-to-me license (PIL license used in Pillow
<https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/blob/master/LICENSE>). It is
MIT-ish, but ... to my mind, definitely not MIT. Line them up side-by-side
and you'll see reasonably large differences. (GitHub's `licensee` reports
the two licenses as a ~56% match, which is an imperfect measure but
I was considering filing it as a new-ish license at SPDX, so I checked "is
this packaged in Fedora", and I see that the Fedora python-pillow spec
simply labels this MIT.
So my question: what should this be labeled as in Fedora? If the answer is
MIT, is there any guidance (formal or informal) on when MIT considers an
MIT-ish license close enough?
This is correct. Those files can be used under the MIT license terms.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:55 PM Nicolas Mailhot <
> Le 2019-03-19 16:57, Clement Galland a écrit :
> > Hi,
> > I would like to use some of your files from
> > http://pagure.io/fedora-comps.git :
> > * comps.dtd
> > * comps.rng
> > * comps-cleanup.xsl
> > I would use them for an internal tool, however, because there is no
> > license files, I prefer to ask you directly if I can use them.
> I'm only the main author or the rng file, and I'm pretty sure it's a
> derived work of the rest.
> I imagine the licensing of the files is basically the same as
> but you should have it confirmed on the fedora-legal mailing list
> Nicolas Mailhot
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 3:36 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Is it necessary that an open source license must allow porting to
> > proprietary systems? I don't think so today. But based on what I
> > found out about the OpenMotif license, people actually thought that
> > back then. This surprises me. Has this changed?
I'm not sure if this was at all a concern in the past, but the license is
confusing in how it states the "open source" operating system limitation,
and it's possible to read it as prohibting, for example, running Open Motif
on a privately-modified version of Debian or Fedora.
The table entry for Lucent Public License (Plan9) lists it as
GPL2-incompatible. However, the entry for GPL3 compatibility is
undefined. The OSI lists two revisions of the LPL (1.0 and 1.02), and
it is not clear if the compatibility table refers one or both
Also, the given link is not accessible.