I wanted to test some shell compatibility features recently, and I came across the need to test ksh88 like shell. I noticed there's heilroom-sh project [1, 2] that I'd like to package at least in Fedora Copr so I could easily test in the future. Though there are two license files I'm afraid are not really mentioned neither in good/bad list of licenses (attached) so far.
I believe they are good (BSD and CDDL modification), but I'd appreciate an explicit check, and perhaps fixing the Fedora licensing [3] wiki page.
[1] http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html [2] https://sourceforge.net/projects/heirloom/files/heirloom-sh/050706/heirloom-... [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
Thank you, Pavel
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 9:08 AM Pavel Raiskup praiskup@redhat.com wrote:
I wanted to test some shell compatibility features recently, and I came across the need to test ksh88 like shell. I noticed there's heilroom-sh project [1, 2] that I'd like to package at least in Fedora Copr so I could easily test in the future. Though there are two license files I'm afraid are not really mentioned neither in good/bad list of licenses (attached) so far.
I believe they are good (BSD and CDDL modification), but I'd appreciate an explicit check, and perhaps fixing the Fedora licensing [3] wiki page.
Yes, one is a variant of the 4-clause BSD license (if Jilayne Lovejoy is reading this, note that this would apparently not match SPDX BSD-4-Clause as currently delineated) and the other is CDDL 1.0 with an expected choice of law addendum.
Richard
Hi there,
On 10/25/21 8:30 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 9:08 AM Pavel Raiskuppraiskup@redhat.com wrote:
I wanted to test some shell compatibility features recently, and I came across the need to test ksh88 like shell. I noticed there's heilroom-sh project [1, 2] that I'd like to package at least in Fedora Copr so I could easily test in the future. Though there are two license files I'm afraid are not really mentioned neither in good/bad list of licenses (attached) so far.
I believe they are good (BSD and CDDL modification), but I'd appreciate an explicit check, and perhaps fixing the Fedora licensing [3] wiki page.
Yes, one is a variant of the 4-clause BSD license (if Jilayne Lovejoy is reading this, note that this would apparently not match SPDX BSD-4-Clause as currently delineated) and the other is CDDL 1.0 with an expected choice of law addendum.
This variant of the 4-clause BSD license is on the SPDX License List but with an additional lead-in section: see: https://spdx.org/licenses/Caldera.html
Does anyone have any idea as to how prevalent this license is? I'm wondering why this variant removes the first paragraph. (Perhaps SPDX should mark that first paragraph as optional.)
The is, indeed, CDDL-1.0
Cheers, Jilayne
legal mailing list --legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email tolegal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives:https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 08:45:13AM -0600, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
This variant of the 4-clause BSD license is on the SPDX License List but with an additional lead-in section: see: https://spdx.org/licenses/Caldera.html
Does anyone have any idea as to how prevalent this license is? I'm wondering why this variant removes the first paragraph. (Perhaps SPDX should mark that first paragraph as optional.)
Since we don't have a complete exploded, searchable repository of all of the packages in Fedora¹, I don't have a quick way to check, but the string (case-insensitive) "caldera" does not appear in any of the files under /usr/share/licenses/ on my system.
1. Funding for this project wanted!
On 10/26/21 9:20 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 08:45:13AM -0600, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
This variant of the 4-clause BSD license is on the SPDX License List but with an additional lead-in section: see: https://spdx.org/licenses/Caldera.html
Does anyone have any idea as to how prevalent this license is? I'm wondering why this variant removes the first paragraph. (Perhaps SPDX should mark that first paragraph as optional.)
Since we don't have a complete exploded, searchable repository of all of the packages in Fedora¹,
is there a project to create this?!? that would be awesome... I'd donate! ;)
I don't have a quick way to check, but the string (case-insensitive) "caldera" does not appear in any of the files under /usr/share/licenses/ on my system.
is /usr/share/licenses/ a complete collection? seems like this license would likely appear in the files themselves? (but back to... no way to search that easily)?
- Funding for this project wanted!
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 09:28:36AM -0600, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
On 10/26/21 9:20 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 08:45:13AM -0600, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
This variant of the 4-clause BSD license is on the SPDX License List but with an additional lead-in section: see: https://spdx.org/licenses/Caldera.html
Does anyone have any idea as to how prevalent this license is? I'm wondering why this variant removes the first paragraph. (Perhaps SPDX should mark that first paragraph as optional.)
Since we don't have a complete exploded, searchable repository of all of the packages in Fedora¹,
is there a project to create this?!? that would be awesome... I'd donate! ;)
I don't have a quick way to check, but the string (case-insensitive) "caldera" does not appear in any of the files under /usr/share/licenses/ on my system.
is /usr/share/licenses/ a complete collection? seems like this license would likely appear in the files themselves? (but back to... no way to search that easily)?
/usr/share/licenses contains the license files of the installed packages on the system. So no, it's not the entirety of Fedora. Only the Fedora you have installed.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 09:28:36AM -0600, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
Since we don't have a complete exploded, searchable repository of all of the packages in Fedora¹,
is there a project to create this?!? that would be awesome... I'd donate! ;)
Not actually a project, just something I've wished for a for a long time. Specifically, what I'd like is to set up Sourcegraph (https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph) or something like it pointed at:
1. dist-git 2. the tree generated in koji during the build process after the %prep stage of each package (so after patches and other manipulation) 3. corresponding upstream trackers where available
... or possibly pay Sourcegraph to do it for us. They seem like nice people.
Am Montag, dem 25.10.2021 um 15:08 +0200 schrieb Pavel Raiskup:
I wanted to test some shell compatibility features recently, and I came across the need to test ksh88 like shell. I noticed there's heilroom-sh project [1, 2] that I'd like to package at least in Fedora Copr so I could easily test in the future. Though there are two license files I'm afraid are not really mentioned neither in good/bad list of licenses (attached) so far.
I believe they are good (BSD and CDDL modification), but I'd appreciate an explicit check, and perhaps fixing the Fedora licensing [3] wiki page.
[1] http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html [2] https://sourceforge.net/projects/heirloom/files/heirloom-sh/050706/heirloom-... [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
Hi Pavel,
both licenses are listed as "good" licenses according to the Fedora licensing wiki page [1].
The license tag of the package will be "CDDL-1.0 and BSD with advertising".
The CDDL-1.0 requires that all resulting binaries or object files that are linked with object files licensed under the CDDL-1.0 terms and conditions can legally be relicensed to the CDDL-1.0 terms and conditions, which is in this case is permissible by the BSD license.
Thanks, Björn
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses
-
Björn 'besser82' Esser -
David Cantrell -
Jilayne Lovejoy -
Matthew Miller -
Pavel Raiskup -
Richard Fontana