[fab] Fedora as Free Software?

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Apr 21, 2006, Matt Domsch <matt at domsch.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 08:08:26PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>> 
>> > I'm wondering what you guys think about changing the tilt of Fedora from
>> > open source to free software.  Namely, saying that the license should
>> > meet the free software definition (
>> >  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ) and then mentioning that
>> > OSI-certified licenses (with the exception of the Reciprocal Public
>> > License, which we're going to reevaluate) are a good list, as well as
>> > the free software licenses that are listed on the FSF website.
>> > 
>> > The goal is to make Fedora a distribution that the FSF can positively
>> > endorse.  I think we're really close.  Any reason to not try to go all
>> > the way?
>> 
>> Do we have an idea of what we would need to drop to be completely free
>> software definition compliant?
>> 
>> What would we lose?
>> 
>> I guess a few rpm queries on license should work.
>> what licenses are we looking for?

> At a glance of Core -devel, the following packages don't have licenses
> that are explicitly on the FSF's list:

> tog-pegasus	       Open Group Pegasus Open Source (motif)
> tog-pegasus-devel      Open Group Pegasus Open Source	
> openmotif	       Open Group Public License	
> openmotif-devel	       Open Group Public License	
> xorg-x11-proto-devel   The Open Group License
> xorg-x11-util-macros   The Open Group License

> jdepend		       Clarkware License
> jdepend-demo	       Clarkware License
> jdepend-javadoc	       Clarkware License

> adaptx		       Exolab Software License
> adaptx-doc	       Exolab Software License
> adaptx-javadoc	       Exolab Software License
> castor		       Exolab Software License
> castor-demo	       Exolab Software License
> castor-doc	       Exolab Software License
> castor-javadoc	       Exolab Software License
> castor-test	       Exolab Software License
> castor-xml	       Exolab Software License

> latex2html   Free To Use But Restricted (See LICENSE)

> tanukiwrapper		 Tanuki Software License (open source)
> tanukiwrapper-demo	 Tanuki Software License (open source)
> tanukiwrapper-javadoc	 Tanuki Software License (open source)
> tanukiwrapper-manual	 Tanuki Software License (open source)

> libc-client		 University of Washington Free-Fork License
> libc-client-devel	 University of Washington Free-Fork License

> xdoclet			 XDoclet Open Source Licence
> xdoclet-javadoc		 XDoclet Open Source Licence
> xdoclet-manual		 XDoclet Open Source Licence


> For that matter, none of these are on the OSI's list either explicitly.

> Then there's all of the "distributable" License tags, and the packages
> marked "various".

> So yes, close, but not a done deal.

David Turner also ran his own license check on my `everything' install
of rawhide.  Here's what he found so far:

> Fedora licenses:
> jlex : Free == SML of NJ license (simple permissive)
> * openmotif : Open Group Public License == non-free
> * openmotif-devel : Open Group Public License == non-free
> ? libc-client : University of Washington Free-Fork License == I read this and 
>    I still can't figure out if it's free.  I think it's probably not, because
>    of clause 9 (which purports to bind the rest of the world by US law), but 
>    maybe that's OK
> ? libc-client-devel : University of Washington Free-Fork License
> ncurses-devel : distributable == mostly simple permissive, some GPL, some LGPL.  Many files missing notices (wrote to maintainers)
> ncurses : distributable == as above, OK
> docbook-style-dsssl : Distributable == simple permissive with rename 
>   (versioning) clause.  gpl-incompatible but free.  OK
> gnuplot : Redistributable, with restrictions == last I checked, the gnuplot 
>   license was free, OK
> eruby-libs : distributable == LGPL
> castor-javadoc : Exolab Software License == Apache 1.1, OK
> astor : Exolab Software License == OK
> castor-xml : Exolab Software License == OK
> castor-test : Exolab Software License == OK
> castor-doc : Exolab Software License
> adaptx-doc : Exolab Software License
> adaptx : Exolab Software License
> adaptx-javadoc : Exolab Software License
> castor-demo : Exolab Software License
> xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-15-75dpi : Various licenses
> fonts-KOI8-R-75dpi : distributable
> gpg-pubkey : pubkey (contains a public key; no software; OK)
> ruby : Distributable == GPL/non-free disjunction, ok
> ruby-irb : Distributable == GPL/non-free, OK
> libjpeg : distributable == simple pemissive, OK
> boost : Boost Software License == OK
> ckermit : Special (see COPYING.TXT.gz) == Non-free
> tanukiwrapper : Tanuki Software License (open source) == MIT, OK
> tanukiwrapper-manual : Tanuki Software License (open source) == MIT, OK
> tanukiwrapper-demo : Tanuki Software License (open source) == MIT, OK
> tanukiwrapper-javadoc : Tanuki Software License (open source) == MIT, OK
> libtiff : distributable == probably incompatible simple permissive
> adjtimex : distributable == GPL
> lslk : Free == simple permissive, maybe incompatible, OK
> perl-URI : Distributable == Perl, ok
> ppp : distributable == mix of GPL-incompatible license, LGPL, GPL.  Probably undistributable due to incompatibilities.  Otherwise free. Wrote to debian maintainer.  He says it's actually OK due to exceptions he requested.  OK
> tcp_wrappers : Distributable == BSD-like, OK
> openldap : OpenLDAP == OK
> mx : eGenix.com Public License (Python) == permissive, incompatible, OK
> perl-Net-Telnet : distributable == Perl, OK
> compat-openldap : OpenLDAP == OK
> ? selinux-doc : Public Use License v1.0 == Potentially bogus license -- may actually be public domain.  No official ruling on this license, but is almost certainly free.  
> openldap-devel : OpenLDAP == OK
> compat-openldap : OpenLDAP == OK
> openldap-servers : OpenLDAP == OK
> openldap-clients : OpenLDAP == OK
> openldap : OpenLDAP == OK
> openldap-servers-sql : OpenLDAP == OK
> ? netpbm : freeware == various licenses, mostly or all free 
> ? netpbm-devel : freeware == ditto
> * netpbm-progs : freeware == Contains some files with no license notices.  See here for details: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/n/netpbm-free/netpbm-free_10.0-8sarge3/netpbm.copyright
> newt-perl : Artistic == actually, Perl. OK

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Secretary for FSF Latin America        http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}