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 want to add rtklib in repos and I need to Know about allowing it's
license in Fedora.
It is BSD-2-Clause but with addition clause:
- The software package includes some companion executive binaries or shared
libraries necessary to execute APs on Windows. These licenses succeed to the
original ones of these software.
Full text available here
But I am not include any binary or windows specific files in package.
Could you please take a look at bug 1801519?
The package is golang-github-google-licenseclassifier. It contains the text of
a large number of licenses to detect them. Some of these Licenses are good for
Fedora, other not. Basically am I allowed to distribute the text of these
licenses along my package? What it the license status of the text of the
licenses? Is each license covered by itself?
One of the various reasons for having package reviews is having a human
verify that the packager's choice of License: tag is valid. The
Packaging Committee is was faced with a request
(https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1007) that has us
questioning just how much license review is required.
Are any of the following acceptable?
1) Trust the packager to do a license review, with no reviewer
2) Trust the output of an automated tool which attempts to detect
project licenses (such as askalono).
3) Trust the license tag from a project hosting service such as github?
(I understand that the answer may depend on the hosting service.)
Depending on what is acceptable, we may be able to reduce bureaucracy a
bit. I know that back when I did package reviews, the license review
was often the most difficult part.
On 01. 07. 20 16:24, Ben Cotton wrote:
> == Summary ==
> BLAS/LAPACK packages will be compiled against the FlexiBLAS wrapper
> library, which will set OpenBLAS as system-wide default backend, and
> at the same time will provide a proper switching mechanism that
> currently Fedora lacks.
> == Scope ==
> * Proposal owners: Modify the SPECs of the BLAS/LAPACK-dependent
> packages to build against FlexiBLAS instead of the current backend
> they are using.
I wonder, given FlexiBLAS is released under GPL (and not LGPL), whether this
means we would need to change the licenses of all non-GPL packages that will be
linked to FlexiBLAS to GPL.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 19:28:53 +0200
Iñaki Ucar <iucar(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> I'm no expert, but the FAQ says:
> "You have a GPLed program that I'd like to link with my code to build
> a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program
> mean I have to GPL my program? (#LinkingWithGPL)
> Not exactly. It means you must release your program under a license
> compatible with the GPL (more precisely, compatible with one or more
> GPL versions accepted by all the rest of the code in the combination
> that you link). The combination itself is then available under those
> GPL versions."
> So my understanding is that it's ok for a program to link to FlexiBLAS
> if its license is GPL-compatible, not necessarily GPL. But of course
> we would need confirmation from legal.
The library is GPLv3 only
which already makes it incompatible with many GNU Licenses
not to mention many other free licenses that are allowed in Fedora
Fedora Project Contributor