Question about public domain file in dictd

[Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez]

Hi,

I have been preparing a new update to dictd, and while doing it, I ran 
the licensecheck to double-check and cleanup the license tag.

I found out that the licenses involved in the source code for the new 
1.13.1 are more than originally specified in 1.12.x. There is a COPYING 
file with GPL-2.0-only, but the source code files have more. The final 
list is:

GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-1.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later
   AND MIT AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause

There is one file in the source code that claims to be "public domain" [1]:

This code was written by Colin Plumb in 1993, no copyright is claimed.
   This code is in the public domain; do with it what you wish

This file is indeed code, so the allowed content exception for CC0-1.0 
doesn't apply. The file is not written by the upstream maintainer but 
appears to be authored by someone else not in the maintainer list. I'm 
not sure how to proceed here. I could request the upstream developer to 
see if he can change the license but not sure will be able since it is 
not his. Would this be a valid case for Unlicense?

[1] https://github.com/cheusov/dictd/blob/1.13.1/md5.c

Thank you,
Carlos R.F.

[Ben Beasley]

Speaking as an experienced packager, not a member of the Fedora legal team:

Although some authors conflate it with “public domain,” CC0-1.0 is just 
one type of ultra-permissive license. It is not-allowed for code in 
Fedora due to concerns about patent-related language in the actual 
CC0-1.0 license, not due to a general prohibition on public-domain 
dedications or ultra-permissive licenses.

The md5.c file you mention does not reference CC0-1.0 at all, and is in 
fact under a simple “public-domain dedication” that would be assigned 
the SPDX id LicenseRef-Fedora-PublicDomain.

You do need to submit the text for review and tracking under the process 
outlined in 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/#_public..., 
but I have no doubt that it will be approved; this is a straightforward 
public-domain dedication, and this particular md5 implementation is very 
widespread and well-known and already bundled in many of packages in 
Fedora. In fact, under the old rules for bundling that required explicit 
exceptions, this MD5 implementation was one of the documented 
“copylibs,” 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries_Virtual_Provides#cite_note-....

On 2/28/24 9:57 AM, Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been preparing a new update to dictd, and while doing it, I ran 
> the licensecheck to double-check and cleanup the license tag.
>
> I found out that the licenses involved in the source code for the new 
> 1.13.1 are more than originally specified in 1.12.x. There is a 
> COPYING file with GPL-2.0-only, but the source code files have more. 
> The final list is:
>
> GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-1.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later
>   AND MIT AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause
>
> There is one file in the source code that claims to be "public domain" 
> [1]:
>
> This code was written by Colin Plumb in 1993, no copyright is claimed.
>   This code is in the public domain; do with it what you wish
>
> This file is indeed code, so the allowed content exception for CC0-1.0 
> doesn't apply. The file is not written by the upstream maintainer but 
> appears to be authored by someone else not in the maintainer list. I'm 
> not sure how to proceed here. I could request the upstream developer 
> to see if he can change the license but not sure will be able since it 
> is not his. Would this be a valid case for Unlicense?
>
> [1] https://github.com/cheusov/dictd/blob/1.13.1/md5.c
>
> Thank you,
> Carlos R.F.
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> legal mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

Speaking as a member of the Fedora legal team: What Ben said below 
(thanks Ben!)

I can confirm that this would be considered a public domain dedication 
and does not need an issue to review it, but you can make a MR to this 
file, see instructions at the top: 
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/public-domai...

Thanks!
Jilayne

On 2/28/24 8:14 AM, Ben Beasley wrote:
> Speaking as an experienced packager, not a member of the Fedora legal 
> team:
>
> Although some authors conflate it with “public domain,” CC0-1.0 is 
> just one type of ultra-permissive license. It is not-allowed for code 
> in Fedora due to concerns about patent-related language in the actual 
> CC0-1.0 license, not due to a general prohibition on public-domain 
> dedications or ultra-permissive licenses.
>
> The md5.c file you mention does not reference CC0-1.0 at all, and is 
> in fact under a simple “public-domain dedication” that would be 
> assigned the SPDX id LicenseRef-Fedora-PublicDomain.
>
> You do need to submit the text for review and tracking under the 
> process outlined in 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/#_public..., 
> but I have no doubt that it will be approved; this is a 
> straightforward public-domain dedication, and this particular md5 
> implementation is very widespread and well-known and already bundled 
> in many of packages in Fedora. In fact, under the old rules for 
> bundling that required explicit exceptions, this MD5 implementation 
> was one of the documented “copylibs,” 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries_Virtual_Provides#cite_note-....
>
> On 2/28/24 9:57 AM, Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have been preparing a new update to dictd, and while doing it, I 
> > ran the licensecheck to double-check and cleanup the license tag.
> >
> > I found out that the licenses involved in the source code for the new 
> > 1.13.1 are more than originally specified in 1.12.x. There is a 
> > COPYING file with GPL-2.0-only, but the source code files have more. 
> > The final list is:
> >
> > GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-1.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later
> >   AND MIT AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause
> >
> > There is one file in the source code that claims to be "public 
> > domain" [1]:
> >
> > This code was written by Colin Plumb in 1993, no copyright is claimed.
> >   This code is in the public domain; do with it what you wish
> >
> > This file is indeed code, so the allowed content exception for 
> > CC0-1.0 doesn't apply. The file is not written by the upstream 
> > maintainer but appears to be authored by someone else not in the 
> > maintainer list. I'm not sure how to proceed here. I could request 
> > the upstream developer to see if he can change the license but not 
> > sure will be able since it is not his. Would this be a valid case for 
> > Unlicense?
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/cheusov/dictd/blob/1.13.1/md5.c
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Carlos R.F.
> >
> > -- 
> > _______________________________________________
> > legal mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > 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/[e-mail]
> > Do not reply to spam, report it: 
> > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> legal mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez]

Ben, and Jilayne,

Thank you for the guidance on this.

Best Regards,
Carlos R.F.

On 2/28/24 15:14, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
> Speaking as a member of the Fedora legal team: What Ben said below 
> (thanks Ben!)
>
> I can confirm that this would be considered a public domain dedication 
> and does not need an issue to review it, but you can make a MR to this 
> file, see instructions at the top: 
> https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/public-domai...
>
> Thanks!
> Jilayne
>
> On 2/28/24 8:14 AM, Ben Beasley wrote:
> > Speaking as an experienced packager, not a member of the Fedora legal 
> > team:
> >
> > Although some authors conflate it with “public domain,” CC0-1.0 is 
> > just one type of ultra-permissive license. It is not-allowed for code 
> > in Fedora due to concerns about patent-related language in the actual 
> > CC0-1.0 license, not due to a general prohibition on public-domain 
> > dedications or ultra-permissive licenses.
> >
> > The md5.c file you mention does not reference CC0-1.0 at all, and is 
> > in fact under a simple “public-domain dedication” that would be 
> > assigned the SPDX id LicenseRef-Fedora-PublicDomain.
> >
> > You do need to submit the text for review and tracking under the 
> > process outlined in 
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/#_public..., but I have no doubt that it will be approved; this is a straightforward public-domain dedication, and this particular md5 implementation is very widespread and well-known and already bundled in many of packages in Fedora. In fact, under the old rules for bundling that required explicit exceptions, this MD5 implementation was one of the documented “copylibs,” https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries_Virtual_Provides#cite_note-....
> >
> > On 2/28/24 9:57 AM, Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have been preparing a new update to dictd, and while doing it, I 
> > > ran the licensecheck to double-check and cleanup the license tag.
> > >
> > > I found out that the licenses involved in the source code for the new 
> > > 1.13.1 are more than originally specified in 1.12.x. There is a 
> > > COPYING file with GPL-2.0-only, but the source code files have more. 
> > > The final list is:
> > >
> > > GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-1.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later
> > >   AND MIT AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause
> > >
> > > There is one file in the source code that claims to be "public 
> > > domain" [1]:
> > >
> > > This code was written by Colin Plumb in 1993, no copyright is claimed.
> > >   This code is in the public domain; do with it what you wish
> > >
> > > This file is indeed code, so the allowed content exception for 
> > > CC0-1.0 doesn't apply. The file is not written by the upstream 
> > > maintainer but appears to be authored by someone else not in the 
> > > maintainer list. I'm not sure how to proceed here. I could request 
> > > the upstream developer to see if he can change the license but not 
> > > sure will be able since it is not his. Would this be a valid case for 
> > > Unlicense?
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/cheusov/dictd/blob/1.13.1/md5.c
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Carlos R.F.
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > legal mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > > 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/[e-mail]
> > > Do not reply to spam, report it: 
> > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
> >
> > -- 
> > _______________________________________________
> > legal mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > 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/[e-mail]
> > Do not reply to spam, report it: 
> > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> legal mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez]

Hi Jilayne,
I have created the MR [1].

Thank you.

[1] https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/merge_requests/541

On 2/28/24 15:14, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
> Speaking as a member of the Fedora legal team: What Ben said below 
> (thanks Ben!)
>
> I can confirm that this would be considered a public domain dedication 
> and does not need an issue to review it, but you can make a MR to this 
> file, see instructions at the top: 
> https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/public-domai...
>
> Thanks!
> Jilayne
>
> On 2/28/24 8:14 AM, Ben Beasley wrote:
> > Speaking as an experienced packager, not a member of the Fedora legal 
> > team:
> >
> > Although some authors conflate it with “public domain,” CC0-1.0 is 
> > just one type of ultra-permissive license. It is not-allowed for code 
> > in Fedora due to concerns about patent-related language in the actual 
> > CC0-1.0 license, not due to a general prohibition on public-domain 
> > dedications or ultra-permissive licenses.
> >
> > The md5.c file you mention does not reference CC0-1.0 at all, and is 
> > in fact under a simple “public-domain dedication” that would be 
> > assigned the SPDX id LicenseRef-Fedora-PublicDomain.
> >
> > You do need to submit the text for review and tracking under the 
> > process outlined in 
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/#_public..., but I have no doubt that it will be approved; this is a straightforward public-domain dedication, and this particular md5 implementation is very widespread and well-known and already bundled in many of packages in Fedora. In fact, under the old rules for bundling that required explicit exceptions, this MD5 implementation was one of the documented “copylibs,” https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries_Virtual_Provides#cite_note-....
> >
> > On 2/28/24 9:57 AM, Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have been preparing a new update to dictd, and while doing it, I 
> > > ran the licensecheck to double-check and cleanup the license tag.
> > >
> > > I found out that the licenses involved in the source code for the new 
> > > 1.13.1 are more than originally specified in 1.12.x. There is a 
> > > COPYING file with GPL-2.0-only, but the source code files have more. 
> > > The final list is:
> > >
> > > GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-1.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later
> > >   AND MIT AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause
> > >
> > > There is one file in the source code that claims to be "public 
> > > domain" [1]:
> > >
> > > This code was written by Colin Plumb in 1993, no copyright is claimed.
> > >   This code is in the public domain; do with it what you wish
> > >
> > > This file is indeed code, so the allowed content exception for 
> > > CC0-1.0 doesn't apply. The file is not written by the upstream 
> > > maintainer but appears to be authored by someone else not in the 
> > > maintainer list. I'm not sure how to proceed here. I could request 
> > > the upstream developer to see if he can change the license but not 
> > > sure will be able since it is not his. Would this be a valid case for 
> > > Unlicense?
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/cheusov/dictd/blob/1.13.1/md5.c
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Carlos R.F.
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > legal mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > > 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/[e-mail]
> > > Do not reply to spam, report it: 
> > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
> >
> > -- 
> > _______________________________________________
> > legal mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > 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/[e-mail]
> > Do not reply to spam, report it: 
> > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> legal mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue