[fab] Fedora as Free Software?

[Rex Dieter]

Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 6/13/06, Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu> wrote:
>> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>
>> >     Ok here is what is out of Fedora development this morning.. hoping
>>
>> > Is it worth filing bugs against the 200+ packages that need a cleanup?
>>
>> I'd suggest waiting at least until a license format standard/guideline
>> is chosen.
> 
> 
> Yeah.. Not having those would be a waste of time. When they are
> finalized.. I could just send in Patches for all the packages after
> making sure that the license lines are true.
> 
>> > And who would formulate a standard Licensing schema for this? [Again is
>> > it worth it.. beyond pub arguments?]
>>
>> I'd argue this should fall under Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
>>
> 
> If I can be of help here.. ping me. Otherwise I will just get out of
> the way until I can be of use.

I'll make sure spot sees (Cc: spot) that we're trying to give him more 
work... (:

-- Rex

p.s. Appended is Stephen's semi-exhaustive summary of Core's current use 
of License: tag.

-------------------------------

Ok here is what is out of Fedora development this morning.. hoping that 
the License tag is accurate. There are about 238 packages that need 
'cleanups' in one form or another.. my counting had to be done by hand 
because style issues.

Total Packages:         1155
GPL Only:                504
LGPL Only:               137
MIT/X11:                 119
BSD:                      58
Artistic/GPL:             42
MIT:                      16
GPL/LGPL:                 14
Public Domain:            17

Apache Software License:  46
MPL:                       4
CPL:                       9?
GPL combination:          29
LGPL combination:         13
Python:                    5

Lots of Style Issues in others:

"Artistic or GPL" vs "GPL or Artistic"
"LGPL/GPL" vs "GPL/LGPL" vs "GPL,LGPL" vs "LGPL, GPL"
"Apache Software License" vs "Apache Software License 2.0" vs "Apache 
License"
"GPL2" vs "GPLv2" vs "GNU GPL version 2"
"IBM Public License" vs "IBM Common Public License (CPL) v1.0" vs ...
"X License" vs "X11"

The rest:

      28 distributable
      25 Distributable
       6 BSDish
       5 BSD-style
       4 freeware
       4 Artistic
       3 Freely distributable
       3 Free
       3 BSD-like
       3 BSD style
       3 BSD Style
       2 The Open Group License
       2 Redistributable, with restrictions
       2 OSI certified
       2 LaTeX Project Public License 
(http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt)
       2 Freely Distributable
       2 Exolab Software License
       2 CDDL
       1 zlib License
       1 freely distributable
       1 eGenix.com Public License (Python)
       1 XFree86
       1 XDoclet Open Source Licence
       1 X11-style
       1 X License
       1 W3C IPR
       1 Various licenses
       1 Various
       1 University of Washington Free-Fork License
       1 The PHP License v3.01
       1 The PHP License 3.0
       1 Tanuki Software License (open source)
       1 Special (see COPYING.TXT.gz)
       1 Sendmail
       1 SLIB
       1 Public Use License v1.0
       1 OpenLDAP
       1 Open Group Public License
       1 Open Group Pegasus Open Source
       1 MIT-style
       1 MIT, freely distributable.
       1 MIT X11
       1 JPackage License
       1 GNU FDL
       1 GFDL
       1 Freeware
       1 Free To Use But Restricted (See LICENSE)
       1 FDL
       1 Eclipse Public License - v 1.0 (EPL) 
<http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html>
       1 EPL (Eclipse Public License) 
<http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html>
       1 EPL
       1 Distributable (BSD-like)
       1 Creative Commons ShareAlike
       1 Copyright \uffff 1999-2006 Red Hat, Inc.  All rights reserved.
       1 Clarkware License
       1 Boost Software License
       1 BSD-compatible
       1 Apacheish