https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=632853
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) |
--- Comment #37 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com --- (In reply to Mathieu Bridon from comment #35)
Copy-pasting my licensing doubts in this comment, to make it easier for the legal folks to review.
Note that the ppp header has been unbundled.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
The following files are GPLv2+: - bcrelay.c - plugins/pptpd-logwtmp.c - tools/vpnstats.pl The following files are under the LGPLv2+ license. (they are copied from the glibc) - getopt1.c - getopt.c - our_getopt.h The following files are under a BSD that I've never seen before, andisn't even in the wiki page:
- plugins/pppd.h
I don't actually see this file in the pptpd package, but I looked at the one in the ppp-devel package and it is a variant of the "BSD with Attribution" license, so just add that to the License tag if it is actually in the pptpd package.
The following files are said to be copied from RFC 1662: - ppphdlc.c - ppphdlc.h
These are clearly derived from the pptpclient source by C. S. Ananian, which is GPLv2+, so these files can be considered to be under that license as well.
Assuming that the pppd.h file isn't in pptpd, the license tag should be:
GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
Lifting FE-Legal.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker