'New' licenses

[Jaromir Capik]

Hello.

During the PkgWrangler reviews I found some files
with the following statements which aren't mentioned
on the Fedora Licensing page and I'd like to ask you
to add new entries for them.

1.) FSF-configure / FSF-unlimited / FSF-configure-unlimited

a.)

# Copyright (C) 1992-1996, 1998-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
#
#
# This configure script is free software; the Free Software Foundation
# gives unlimited permission to copy, distribute and modify it.

b.)

#   Copyright 1996-2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
#
#
#   This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation gives
#   unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without
#   modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.

2.) The "Verbatim" License

The text can be found here
http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/licenses.html#verbatim

Please, let me know.

Thanks,
Jaromir.

--
Jaromir Capik
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
Software Engineer / BaseOS

Email: [e-mail]
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic
IC: 27690016

[Tom Callaway]

On 11/12/2012 12:48 PM, Jaromir Capik wrote:
> Hello.
>
> During the PkgWrangler reviews I found some files
> with the following statements which aren't mentioned
> on the Fedora Licensing page and I'd like to ask you
> to add new entries for them.
>
> 1.) FSF-configure / FSF-unlimited / FSF-configure-unlimited
>
> a.)
>
> # Copyright (C) 1992-1996, 1998-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> #
> #
> # This configure script is free software; the Free Software Foundation
> # gives unlimited permission to copy, distribute and modify it.

I have added this as "FSFUL"...
> b.)
>
> #   Copyright 1996-2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> #
> #
> #   This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation gives
> #   unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without
> #   modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.

... and this variant as "FSFULLR".

However, I would take care to point out that since these license are
almost always only found in "configure" scripts, and those "configure"
scripts almost never end up in the binary RPM package, these tags should
almost never end up in the License: field of a Fedora/RHEL RPM.
> 2.) The "Verbatim" License
>
> The text can be found here
> http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/licenses.html#verbatim

This documentation license has been added as "Verbatim".

Thanks,

~tom

==
Fedora Project

[Petr Pisar]

On 2012-11-12, Tom Callaway  wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 12:48 PM, Jaromir Capik wrote:
> > 1.) FSF-configure / FSF-unlimited / FSF-configure-unlimited
> >
> > a.)
> >
> > # Copyright (C) 1992-1996, 1998-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > #
> > #
> > # This configure script is free software; the Free Software Foundation
> > # gives unlimited permission to copy, distribute and modify it.
>
> I have added this as "FSFUL"...
> > b.)
> >
> > #   Copyright 1996-2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > #
> > #
> > #   This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation gives
> > #   unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without
> > #   modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.
>
> ... and this variant as "FSFULLR".

The licenses are missing a permission to execute the code. Does it mean
we cannot execute configure scripts?

Is it bug in the license text? Or just an US---EU discrepancy? Should we
obtain clarification from FSF?

-- Petr

[Mikolaj Izdebski]

> The licenses are missing a permission to execute the code. Does it mean
> we cannot execute configure scripts?

These scripts are derived from code licensed under GPLv3+ with Autoconf
exception. GPLv3+ grants you permission to use them.

[Tom Callaway]

On 11/27/2012 09:03 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> The licenses are missing a permission to execute the code. Does it mean
> we cannot execute configure scripts?
>
> Is it bug in the license text? Or just an US---EU discrepancy? Should we
> obtain clarification from FSF?

The act of executing code is not "copying", "distribution",
"modification/derivation", so it does not fall within the range of
exclusive copyright rights that are limited to the copyright holder (and
thus, necessary to be granted to others).

It might tread into the very murky area of Moral Rights, although, I
think that would be one hell of a stretch. You'd need to consult with a
European lawyer if you wanted a more authoritarian answer on that, as
the US generally doesn't consider Moral rights in the area of Copyright
law. (There's pages and pages about how confusing this is...)

In the United States, Section 117 of the Copyright Act gives the owner
of a particular copy of software the explicit right to "utilize" the
software with a computer, so it is not necessary for this permission to
be explicitly granted.

As usual, IANAL, this is not legal advice. It does however, reflect the
position of the Fedora Project.

~tom

==
Fedora Project