9:16 a.m.
sorry for the duplicate post, but I am afraid fedora-extras-list was
not the best place for this...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gianluca Sforna <giallu(a)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 30, 2007 10:41 AM
Subject: Licensing issue in mantis
To: Discussion related to Fedora Extras <fedora-extras-list(a)redhat.com>
Mantis (php) codebase includes a module which comes from a 3rd party
project and is licensed with a "free for non commercial use" style
clause which is, AFAICT, incompatible with the GPL.
Is removing the offending file from the rpm package during %install enough?
Is upstream compelled to remove it as well?
9:23 a.m.
Gianluca Sforna wrote:
sorry for the duplicate post, but I am afraid fedora-extras-list was
not the best place for this...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gianluca Sforna <giallu(a)gmail.com>
Date: Mar 30, 2007 10:41 AM
Subject: Licensing issue in mantis
To: Discussion related to Fedora Extras <fedora-extras-list(a)redhat.com>
Mantis (php) codebase includes a module which comes from a 3rd party
project and is licensed with a "free for non commercial use" style
clause which is, AFAICT, incompatible with the GPL.
Is removing the offending file from the rpm package during %install enough?
Yes (imo).
-- Rex
9:25 a.m.
Rex Dieter wrote:
Gianluca Sforna wrote:
> sorry for the duplicate post, but I am afraid fedora-extras-list was
> not the best place for this...
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Gianluca Sforna <giallu(a)gmail.com>
> Date: Mar 30, 2007 10:41 AM
> Subject: Licensing issue in mantis
> To: Discussion related to Fedora Extras <fedora-extras-list(a)redhat.com>
>
>
> Mantis (php) codebase includes a module which comes from a 3rd party
> project and is licensed with a "free for non commercial use" style
> clause which is, AFAICT, incompatible with the GPL.
> Is removing the offending file from the rpm package during %install
> enough?
Yes (imo).
On second thought, it probably ought to be removed from the source
tarball, on the chance that possible commercial use makes the srpm
non-re-distributable (depends on the exactly licensing terms, I guess).
-- Rex
9:33 a.m.
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 09:25 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
> Gianluca Sforna wrote:
>> sorry for the duplicate post, but I am afraid fedora-extras-list was
>> not the best place for this...
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Gianluca Sforna <giallu(a)gmail.com>
>> Date: Mar 30, 2007 10:41 AM
>> Subject: Licensing issue in mantis
>> To: Discussion related to Fedora Extras <fedora-extras-list(a)redhat.com>
>>
>>
>> Mantis (php) codebase includes a module which comes from a 3rd party
>> project and is licensed with a "free for non commercial use" style
>> clause which is, AFAICT, incompatible with the GPL.
>> Is removing the offending file from the rpm package during %install
>> enough?
>
> Yes (imo).
On second thought, it probably ought to be removed from the source
tarball, on the chance that possible commercial use makes the srpm
non-re-distributable (depends on the exactly licensing terms, I guess).
Yeah, you'll need to remove it from the Source tarball. Just take it out
of the Source tarball, rename it to note that it is modified, and make a
comment in the spec file explaining why.
~spot
9:57 a.m.
On 3/30/07, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 09:25 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Gianluca Sforna wrote:
> >> sorry for the duplicate post, but I am afraid fedora-extras-list was
> >> not the best place for this...
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: Gianluca Sforna <giallu(a)gmail.com>
> >> Date: Mar 30, 2007 10:41 AM
> >> Subject: Licensing issue in mantis
> >> To: Discussion related to Fedora Extras
<fedora-extras-list(a)redhat.com>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mantis (php) codebase includes a module which comes from a 3rd party
> >> project and is licensed with a "free for non commercial use"
style
> >> clause which is, AFAICT, incompatible with the GPL.
> >> Is removing the offending file from the rpm package during %install
> >> enough?
> >
> > Yes (imo).
>
> On second thought, it probably ought to be removed from the source
> tarball, on the chance that possible commercial use makes the srpm
> non-re-distributable (depends on the exactly licensing terms, I guess).
Yeah, you'll need to remove it from the Source tarball. Just take it out
of the Source tarball, rename it to note that it is modified, and make a
comment in the spec file explaining why.
Ok. I assume this is to be done also upstream, that is, they can not
continue shipping it in the same tarball?
10:16 a.m.
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 16:57 +0200, Gianluca Sforna wrote:
On 3/30/07, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 09:25 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > Gianluca Sforna wrote:
> > >> sorry for the duplicate post, but I am afraid fedora-extras-list was
> > >> not the best place for this...
> > >>
> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > >> From: Gianluca Sforna <giallu(a)gmail.com>
> > >> Date: Mar 30, 2007 10:41 AM
> > >> Subject: Licensing issue in mantis
> > >> To: Discussion related to Fedora Extras
<fedora-extras-list(a)redhat.com>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Mantis (php) codebase includes a module which comes from a 3rd party
> > >> project and is licensed with a "free for non commercial use"
style
> > >> clause which is, AFAICT, incompatible with the GPL.
> > >> Is removing the offending file from the rpm package during %install
> > >> enough?
> > >
> > > Yes (imo).
> >
> > On second thought, it probably ought to be removed from the source
> > tarball, on the chance that possible commercial use makes the srpm
> > non-re-distributable (depends on the exactly licensing terms, I guess).
>
> Yeah, you'll need to remove it from the Source tarball. Just take it out
> of the Source tarball, rename it to note that it is modified, and make a
> comment in the spec file explaining why.
Ok. I assume this is to be done also upstream, that is, they can not
continue shipping it in the same tarball?
While this is something that we would like to encourage upstream to do
(either relicense it without the commercial use restriction or pull the
code out entirely), it is not required. You only need to do this to meet
Fedora requirements.
~spot
10:21 a.m.
On 3/30/07, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Ok. I assume this is to be done also upstream, that is, they can not
> continue shipping it in the same tarball?
While this is something that we would like to encourage upstream to do
(either relicense it without the commercial use restriction or pull the
code out entirely), it is not required. You only need to do this to meet
Fedora requirements.
Well. They can not relicense it because it's not under their
copyright, but it comes from a 3rd party project
(http://php-flp.sourceforge.net/); I'll ask them to try replacing it
with something providing the same functionality (it's a rss feed
generator php class)
thanks for your help
6234
days inactive
6234
days old
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
6 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Gianluca Sforna -
Rex Dieter -
Tom Callaway