----- Original Message -----
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
Thanks all,
so I will go with the 'Semi-Permissive' license short name for the
initial packaging of the code
thanks & regards
Jaroslav