gsview's AFPL licensing

Rex Dieter rdieter at
Wed Apr 5 19:19:30 UTC 2006

Kevin Kofler wrote:
> GSView (currently in Extras) is licensed under the AFPL: 
> According to the FSF, this is NOT a Free Software license: 
> In particular, it essentially prohibits commercial distribution. In the 
> author's own words: "AFPL Ghostscript comes with a licence that is more 
> restrictive than the GNU Licence; in particular, it restricts the distribution 
> of AFPL Ghostscript in commercial contexts.", and looking at the license (as 
> well as the FSF's interpretation of it which appears to match mine), 
> "restricts" appears to be an understatement. Each time somebody brought up that 
> issue, the consensus was that non-commercial-only licenses are not acceptable 
> in Extras (and I agree with that, Fedora aims to contain Free and Open Source 
> software only, non-commercial-only software is neither). 


You make a very good point.  It may have been marginally OK when it was 
orginally submitted back in the days, but it almost certainly 
is not OK for inclusion now.

> I also don't see why GSView is needed in Extras at all, given that: 
> * there are alternatives (with less restrictive licensing)...
> * it uses the obsolete GTK+ 1.2, 
> * repoquery --whatrequires gsview returns nothing....

This bit is irrelavent.  These additional criteria are not required for 
including something in Extras.

-- Rex

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list