On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 7:18 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:30 AM Jaroslav Skarvada <jskarvad(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Am Montag, den 24.08.2020, 03:18 -0400 schrieb Jaroslav Skarvada:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > the code contains the following text:
> > > * <db(a)FreeBSD.ORG> wrote this file. As long as you retain this
> > > notice you
> > > * can do whatever you want with this code, except you may not
> > > * license it under any form of the GPL.
> > > * A postcard or QSL card showing me you appreciate
> > > * this code would be nice. Diane Bruce va3db
> > >
> > > How to name such license in the spec?
> > Hi,
> > from my POV (not a lawyer) this license does NOT look to be suitable for
> > Fedora. Although the license seems to be compliant with many or most of
> > the statues of opensoure-software, it impairs the user's freedom, and
> > thus is to be considered as a NON-FREE license.
> > Just my thoughts about it…
> > Cheers
> > Björn
> Sorry, I don't understand why it can "impairs the user's freedom"
> it disallows re-licensing under GPL
Because it effectively states that you cannot combine it with another
work that would collectively be GPL. You cannot satisfy the terms of
this license and the GPL at the same time in that situation.
This is nonfree software unless the author can be contacted to remove
that clause. If they remove the clause, it's Free Software and can be
included in Fedora.
Ironically, I'm pretty sure such a clause is against the FreeBSD
licensing principles too.
I am going to disagree with my learned friends on this issue. Many
licenses considered acceptable for Fedora are also considered GPLv2
and GPLv3-incompatible for various reasons. In particular there is the
"Original SSLeay License", which was one of the conjuncts in what was
generally known as the OpenSSL license, which tacks on this clause at
* The licence and distribution terms for any publically [sic]
available version or
* derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot simply be
* copied and put under another distribution licence
* [including the GNU Public Licence [sic].]
If that was considered okay, if somewhat unfriendly, then I think the
language pointed out here ought to be okay too.