About Linux Documentation Project License

[Mamoru Tasaka]

Hello:

In the review of rubygem-ncursesw (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597709)
I noticed that some example files are licensed under "Linux Documentation Project License":

http://tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html

I would appreciate it if it is investigated if this license is acceptable for Fedora
or not.

Regards,
Mamoru

[Matt McCutchen]

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 03:00 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> In the review of rubygem-ncursesw (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597709)
> I noticed that some example files are licensed under "Linux Documentation Project License":
>
> http://tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html
>
> I would appreciate it if it is investigated if this license is acceptable for Fedora
> or not.

I would describe it as a free copyleft license, where a requirement to
provide the source form can be added in derivative works.  (Note that
the parts that are only requests can be ignored.)  I expect it to be
fine for Fedora, but I'm not the one to actually make the decision.

[Tom Callaway]

On 06/01/2010 02:00 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> Hello:
>
> In the review of rubygem-ncursesw (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597709)
> I noticed that some example files are licensed under "Linux Documentation Project License":
>
> http://tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html
>
> I would appreciate it if it is investigated if this license is acceptable for Fedora
> or not.

Yeah. This license is Free (GPL-incompatible, but that doesn't matter
much for a documentation license).

Use:

License: LDPL

~spot

[Mamoru Tasaka]

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 06/04/2010 01:41 AM +9:00:
> On 06/01/2010 02:00 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> > Hello:
> >
> > In the review of rubygem-ncursesw (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597709)
> > I noticed that some example files are licensed under "Linux Documentation Project License":
> >
> > http://tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html
> >
> > I would appreciate it if it is investigated if this license is acceptable for Fedora
> > or not.
>
> Yeah. This license is Free (GPL-incompatible, but that doesn't matter
> much for a documentation license).
>
> Use:
>
> License: LDPL

Well, I must have written a bit more clearer. In this review request (rubygem-ncursesw)
some example ruby codes (i.e. scripts written in ruby), not "documents", are licensed
under LDPL. How should such case be treated?

(GPL incompatibility doesn't matter for this review. The sample ruby codes actually
  uses rubygem-ncursesw but rubygem-ncursesw is under LGPLv2+)

Regards,
Mamoru

[Tom Callaway]

On 06/03/2010 02:50 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 06/04/2010 01:41 AM +9:00:
> > On 06/01/2010 02:00 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> > > Hello:
> > >
> > > In the review of rubygem-ncursesw (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597709)
> > > I noticed that some example files are licensed under "Linux Documentation Project License":
> > >
> > > http://tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html
> > >
> > > I would appreciate it if it is investigated if this license is acceptable for Fedora
> > > or not.
> >
> > Yeah. This license is Free (GPL-incompatible, but that doesn't matter
> > much for a documentation license).
> >
> > Use:
> >
> > License: LDPL
>
> Well, I must have written a bit more clearer. In this review request (rubygem-ncursesw)
> some example ruby codes (i.e. scripts written in ruby), not "documents", are licensed
> under LDPL. How should such case be treated?
>
> (GPL incompatibility doesn't matter for this review. The sample ruby codes actually
>   uses rubygem-ncursesw but rubygem-ncursesw is under LGPLv2+)

Still okay, just be sure to mark the licenses appropriately.

~spot

[Mamoru Tasaka]

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 06/04/2010 04:02 AM +9:00:
> On 06/03/2010 02:50 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 06/04/2010 01:41 AM +9:00:
> > > On 06/01/2010 02:00 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> > > > Hello:
> > > >
> > > > In the review of rubygem-ncursesw (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597709)
> > > > I noticed that some example files are licensed under "Linux Documentation Project License":
> > > >
> > > > http://tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html
> > > >
> > > > I would appreciate it if it is investigated if this license is acceptable for Fedora
> > > > or not.
> > >
> > > Yeah. This license is Free (GPL-incompatible, but that doesn't matter
> > > much for a documentation license).
> > >
> > > Use:
> > >
> > > License: LDPL
> >
> > Well, I must have written a bit more clearer. In this review request (rubygem-ncursesw)
> > some example ruby codes (i.e. scripts written in ruby), not "documents", are licensed
> > under LDPL. How should such case be treated?
> >
> > (GPL incompatibility doesn't matter for this review. The sample ruby codes actually
> >    uses rubygem-ncursesw but rubygem-ncursesw is under LGPLv2+)
>
> Still okay, just be sure to mark the licenses appropriately.
>
> ~spot

Okay, thank you.

Mamoru