[Fedora-packaging] Licensing guidelines suggestions
paul at city-fan.org
Wed Aug 8 09:33:59 UTC 2007
Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Monday 06 August 2007, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 23:05 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>>> Here's a few notes/questions that IMO need to be addressed in the new
>>> licensing guidelines in Wiki. IANAL, etc, but anyway, something for near
>>> future FPC meetings (which I still probably won't be able to attend to
>>> for a couple of weeks):
>>> 1) The licensing pages strongly imply that OSI-approved licenses are ok.
>>> However for example the original Artistic license is OSI-approved but
>>> listed in Wiki page as "bad". Something needs real fixing - "ask
>>> upstream to move to a "good" Artistic license" is IMO just a band aid.
>> I think we're going to need the Fedora Board to decide this. Its a
>> little outside of our jurisdiction, unfortunately.
> Ok, I'll forward the question to fab-list, hopefully they'll pick this up.
I'll be waiting for a resolution of this before updating most of my perl
module packages - depending on the result, the "same as perl" licensed
modules may be "GPL+" or "GPL+ or Artistic". I favour the latter
personally as that's what the upstream authors intended.
On a related issue, the short name "GPL+" is described as:
A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what
version that it's licensed under in the source code/program
output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any*
version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever
COPYING file they include.
I presume, though it's not explicitly stated, that GPL+ can also be used
where the license is explicitly given as "GPL version 1 or later" (e.g.
for perl and all same-as-perl licensed modules)?
Similarly, I take LGPL+ to be suitable for packages licensed as "LGPL v2
(not 2.1) or later" as well as for LGPL of unspecified version?
More information about the Fedora-packaging