Henry Spencer's license
by Petr Šabata
Dear legal,
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:
https://metacpan.org/source/SHAY/perl-5.20.1/regexec.c
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?
Thank you,
Petr
2 months, 3 weeks
License for package scummvm
by Christian Krause
Hi,
during the update of the package scummvm I reviewed its license and
stumbled over some difficulties:
- the main parts of the source code seem to be GPLv2+:
https://github.com/scummvm/scummvm/blob/branch-2-2/COPYING
- however, parts of scummvm are using a variety of BSD-like licenses as
well as LGPLv2+, please see the various COPYING.* files here:
https://github.com/scummvm/scummvm/tree/branch-2-2
As far as I understand, these additional licenses are compatible with
GPLv2+.
My concrete question is:
Is there a need to list the other licenses in the "License" tag as well or
is "GPLv2+" sufficient? If all licenses need to be listed, would that be in
this case:
"GPLv2+ and BSD and LGPLv2.1+ and OFL" ?
Note 1: It looks like that the TTF fonts under GPLv3+ (COPYING.FREEFONT)
are not installed in Fedora (but they are present in the src package).
Note 2: The Suse distribution seems to use "GPL-2.0+" and Debian has
references to all licenses:
https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main
/s/scummvm/scummvm_2.2.0+dfsg1-1_copyright
Thank you very much in advance for the advice.
Best regards,
Christian
2 years, 6 months
