[Fedora-legal-list] Some licenses which need checking

Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Wed Mar 12 19:32:47 UTC 2008

On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 15:38 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> There's no license information but it was my understanding (IANAL)
> that simple lists of facts like this couldn't be monopolized in the
> US.

Yes. This is fine to include.

> (2) The package ships Unicode data with the license below.  Is it OK?
> http://www.unicode.org/Public/3.2-Update/UnicodeData-3.2.0.html#UCD_Terms
This is already listed in the "Good License" list, use "UCD" in the
License tag.


> (3) The package contains locales from the IBM ICU project.  The
> license for this looks like BSD to me, so is this OK?
>   http://source.icu-project.org/repos/icu/icu/trunk/license.html

This is yet another MIT variant, use "MIT" in the License tag. (I've
added it to the Licensing/MIT page)

> (4) Finally there is one file whose license is described like this:
>   The file allkey.txt [sic] is obtained from Unicode Consortium Web
> site.
>   Its copyright is owned by Unicode Consortium.  Its use,
> reproduction,
>   distribution are permitted under the term of
>         http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html

Believe it or not, this long winded document eventually refers to
"Exhibit A", which is still another MIT variant (I named it "Modern
Style without sublicense (Unicode)" at Licensing/MIT). So, it is also

So, with all of that in hand, this is what your License tag should look
like for your specific package (from 253564):

# Several files are MIT and UCD licensed, but the overall work is LGPLv2
# and the LGPL/GPL supercedes compatible licenses.
License: LGPLv2+

Note that you had "LGPLv2", which is extremely uncommon, since the
LGPLv2 by default has an "or greater clause", thus, the only way you can
get LGPLv2 (which means only v2) is to explicitly exclaim that the
license is v2 only.


More information about the Fedora-legal-list mailing list