Package Licensing

[Steven Garcia]

Please, allow me to introduce myself and the package I represent. I've
recently submitted a package for review at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650767. This is my first Fedora
Core package and I'm not sponsored. I'm one of the upstream developers of
this package.

I was referred to this mailing list by
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Discussion_of_Licensing. I have
thoroughly attempted to answer my own questions by reading the available
resources and looking at existing packages. However, I have much uncertainty
on how I should proceed regarding the licensing.

The package in question contains a web application similar in package
contents to wordpress or phpMyAdmin. The bulk content of the package
consists of interpreted code such as PHP and JavaScript. There aren't any
executable binaries being compiled or packaged. The source files that I and
the other upstream developers create is licensed under AGPLv3.

The following lists a name, license and brief for each third-party source
file group/library:

NAME: ezSQL
LICENSE: LGPL
BRIEF: Third-party PHP source files

NAME: jQuery
LICENSE: MIT or GPLv2
BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source file

NAME: Sizzle
LICENSE: MIT or BSD or GPL
BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source file

NAME: jqXslTransform
LICENSE: MIT
BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source file

NAME: jqLayout
LICENSE: MIT or GPL
BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source file

NAME: jqForm
LICENSE: MIT or GPL
BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source file

NAME: jqUI
LICENSE: MIT or GPL
BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source files

NAME: jsTree
LICENSE: MIT or GPL
BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source files

NAME: Sarissa
LICENSE: ASL 2.0 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+
BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source files

NAME: Plupload
LICENSE: GPLv2
BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript and PHP source files

NAME: Gears Init
LICENSE: BSD 3-clause no advertising
BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source file

NAME: BrowserPlus Gateway
LICENSE: MPLv1.1
BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source file

NAME: CodeMirror
LICENSE: zlib
BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source files

NAME: ParsePHP
LICENSE: BSD 3-clause no advertising
BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source files

The current RPM Spec license field for the package in question is:

License: AGPLv3 and GPLv2 and LGPLv2+ and MPLv1.1 and zlib and BSD and (MIT
or GPLv2) and (MIT or BSD or GPLv2+) and (ASL 2.0 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+)

I'm  NOT sure that the above license field is correct.

Please, assist me in answering the following questions.
Is it acceptable in this specific case for approval as a Fedora package to
simply put 'License: AGPLv3' as the license field of the RPM Spec file? And
is it required in this case for approval as a Fedora package to express all
the third-party source group/library licenses in the RPM Spec file license
field?
Is it required in this case for approval as a Fedora package to include in
the package a separate relevant license text file for every third-party
source group/library?

Please, assist me in specifying the proper RPM Spec license field for
approval as a Fedora package.

Thank you.

[Tom Callaway]

On 11/14/2010 11:30 PM, Steven Garcia wrote:
> The following lists a name, license and brief for each third-party
> source file group/library:

I feel that you really should consider packaging (or using any already
packaged) versions of these third party components, as opposed to
bundling copies within your package.

Not only would it resolve your licensing complexity, it would make it
much more likely that your package would be permitted into Fedora
without needing an exception, see:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries

~spot