GPL and LGPL not acceptable for Fedora!
Ville Skyttä
ville.skytta at iki.fi
Fri Aug 17 07:48:07 UTC 2007
On Friday 17 August 2007, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Labeling them as GPLv1+ is also arrogant and just as wrong to a
> non-lawyer. When I read that clause and used the GPLv2 COPYING file
> with my own code, I assumed that putting a GPLv2 COPYING file counted as
> "specify a version number of this License".
I agree it's not far fetched to guess this is what has happened in a lot of
cases. But FWIW, my strong opinion remains that until upstream clarifies the
intent (and clarification *should* really be asked if at all possible), the
only possible choice for us is to comply with what is actually written in the
license text.
> As an alternative, we could have some boilerplate that specifically
> explains the situation to the upstream author when we encounter a bare
> "GPL" in the source code:
This would be very useful indeed. Your boilerplate looks good to me, although
I'd add some line breaks to make it slightly lighter to read.
> P.S.: Do you agree or disagree with my assessment that a COPYING file in
> the tarball and no licensing information in the source means the program
> is unlicensed and therefore we must get a license from the author or
> have to stop shipping the package in Fedora?
I don't really have an informed nor a strong opinion about that, but perhaps
I'm slightly leaning towards that this wouldn't be a show-stopper.
Clarification should absolutely be asked in this case though.
More information about the Fedora-maintainers
mailing list