Hi all,
I'm trying to package lprint https://github.com/michaelrsweet/lprint which has Apache Software License 2.0 with exceptions for GPLv2 and LGPLv2.
CUPS has a similar license and it was marked as fine for Fedora in this thread [1] .
Unfortunately, there isn't a valid short name for 'ASL 2.0 with exceptions' at [2] - would it be possible to add the short name into the table or should I just use simple 'ASL 2.0'?
Thank you in advance and have a nice day,
Zdenek
[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses
Attaching LICENSE and NOTICE text, covering the license and exceptions.
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: ASL 2.0 with exceptions Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 14:12:04 +0200 From: Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com To: legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hi all,
I'm trying to package lprint https://github.com/michaelrsweet/lprint which has Apache Software License 2.0 with exceptions for GPLv2 and LGPLv2.
CUPS has a similar license and it was marked as fine for Fedora in this thread [1] .
Unfortunately, there isn't a valid short name for 'ASL 2.0 with exceptions' at [2] - would it be possible to add the short name into the table or should I just use simple 'ASL 2.0'?
Thank you in advance and have a nice day,
Zdenek
[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 02:12:04PM +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to package lprint https://github.com/michaelrsweet/lprint which has Apache Software License 2.0 with exceptions for GPLv2 and LGPLv2.
CUPS has a similar license and it was marked as fine for Fedora in this thread [1] .
Unfortunately, there isn't a valid short name for 'ASL 2.0 with exceptions' at [2] - would it be possible to add the short name into the table or should I just use simple 'ASL 2.0'?
Thank you in advance and have a nice day,
Zdenek
[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses
The interesting thing to me here is that LLVM carries this license and exception. It uses the Apache 2.0 license with a GPLv2 exception. But the llvm package in Fedora says 'NCSA' for the License tag.
I think the llvm package might be wrong in Fedora.
Going with SPDX syntax, the way they define Apache 2.0 with the GPLv2 exception (as given as an example in llvm) is:
Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
https://spdx.org/licenses/LLVM-exception.html
To fit the Fedora naming syntax, we probably need "ASL 2.0 with exceptions" added to the list of approved licenses.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 11:54 AM David Cantrell dcantrell@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 02:12:04PM +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to package lprint https://github.com/michaelrsweet/lprint which has Apache Software License 2.0 with exceptions for GPLv2 and LGPLv2.
CUPS has a similar license and it was marked as fine for Fedora in this thread [1] .
Unfortunately, there isn't a valid short name for 'ASL 2.0 with exceptions' at [2] - would it be possible to add the short name into the table or should I just use simple 'ASL 2.0'?
Thank you in advance and have a nice day,
Zdenek
[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses
The interesting thing to me here is that LLVM carries this license and exception. It uses the Apache 2.0 license with a GPLv2 exception. But the llvm package in Fedora says 'NCSA' for the License tag.
I think the llvm package might be wrong in Fedora.
LLVM was formerly licensed, or mostly licensed, under the NCSA license. As of some recent version it switched to the Apache License 2.0 plus that exception.
Going with SPDX syntax, the way they define Apache 2.0 with the GPLv2 exception (as given as an example in llvm) is:
Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exceptionhttps://spdx.org/licenses/LLVM-exception.html
To fit the Fedora naming syntax, we probably need "ASL 2.0 with exceptions" added to the list of approved licenses.
Or perhaps using the SPDX notation instead, at least for the exception part?
Richard
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 12:03:01PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 11:54 AM David Cantrell dcantrell@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 02:12:04PM +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to package lprint https://github.com/michaelrsweet/lprint which has Apache Software License 2.0 with exceptions for GPLv2 and LGPLv2.
CUPS has a similar license and it was marked as fine for Fedora in this thread [1] .
Unfortunately, there isn't a valid short name for 'ASL 2.0 with exceptions' at [2] - would it be possible to add the short name into the table or should I just use simple 'ASL 2.0'?
Thank you in advance and have a nice day,
Zdenek
[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses
The interesting thing to me here is that LLVM carries this license and exception. It uses the Apache 2.0 license with a GPLv2 exception. But the llvm package in Fedora says 'NCSA' for the License tag.
I think the llvm package might be wrong in Fedora.
LLVM was formerly licensed, or mostly licensed, under the NCSA license. As of some recent version it switched to the Apache License 2.0 plus that exception.
Going with SPDX syntax, the way they define Apache 2.0 with the GPLv2 exception (as given as an example in llvm) is:
Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exceptionhttps://spdx.org/licenses/LLVM-exception.html
To fit the Fedora naming syntax, we probably need "ASL 2.0 with exceptions" added to the list of approved licenses.
Or perhaps using the SPDX notation instead, at least for the exception part?
I think the SPDX notation is clear here. Might be a good time to update the licensing guidelines for packages to allow packag maintainers to use an SPDX expression in the License file if they want to and if the licenses for the package can be expressed using SPDX data.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline...
* David Cantrell:
The interesting thing to me here is that LLVM carries this license and exception. It uses the Apache 2.0 license with a GPLv2 exception. But the llvm package in Fedora says 'NCSA' for the License tag.
I think the llvm package might be wrong in Fedora.
It used to be NCSA, but LLVM was relicensed. I filed a bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1866468
Thanks, Florian
(replied earlier but it was moderated...sorry if a duplicate arrives)
On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 14:12 +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
I'm trying to package lprint https://github.com/michaelrsweet/lprint which has Apache Software License 2.0 with exceptions for GPLv2 and LGPLv2.
[...]
Unfortunately, there isn't a valid short name for 'ASL 2.0 with exceptions' at [2] - would it be possible to add the short name into the table or should I just use simple 'ASL 2.0'?
The question of what to name this exception aside, the lprint NOTICE text is only a portion of the LLVM-exception text[3]. The lprint text is awkward in that the first word of the exception is "Additionally" but there's no prior exception text in the lprint NOTICE file for the "Additionally" to refer to. I wonder whether the author might be willing to avoid creating yet another custom exception type, by including the entire LLVM-exception text in the lprint NOTICE file.
-Bryan Sutula
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:15 PM Bryan Sutula bsutula@redhat.com wrote:
(replied earlier but it was moderated...sorry if a duplicate arrives)
On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 14:12 +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
I'm trying to package lprint https://github.com/michaelrsweet/lprint which has Apache Software License 2.0 with exceptions for GPLv2 and LGPLv2.
[...]
Unfortunately, there isn't a valid short name for 'ASL 2.0 with exceptions' at [2] - would it be possible to add the short name into the table or should I just use simple 'ASL 2.0'?
The question of what to name this exception aside, the lprint NOTICE text is only a portion of the LLVM-exception text[3]. The lprint text is awkward in that the first word of the exception is "Additionally" but there's no prior exception text in the lprint NOTICE file for the "Additionally" to refer to. I wonder whether the author might be willing to avoid creating yet another custom exception type, by including the entire LLVM-exception text in the lprint NOTICE file.
Ah, I completely missed that. I suppose it shows that the LLVM exception is not really suitable as a general-purpose (not compiler-specific) exception.
Richard
Hi all,
thank you for all the answers!
There was long-term issue (due Apple legal department) about the mentioned license change in CUPS and llvm license was an example how the acceptable license should look like.
After two years NOTICE file was accepted by Apple legal and put in CUPS project as an exception for ASL 2.0 to prevent future licensing problems.
CUPS project lead at that time and the person who did license change, Mike Sweet, left Apple in the meantime and now he is an author of LPrint, which I try to package and he chose the license which CUPS has to prevent any license issues, because LPrint is based on parts of previous CUPS code.
CUPS project in Apple now has a new lead, who is unfortunately unresponsive at the present, so in my opinion changing/updating license within CUPS is not possible, meaning updating lprint license will not happen unless CUPS exception changes.
Then, would it be possible to have:
'Apache-2.0 WITH CUPS-exception'
or
'ASL 2.0 with exceptions'
as a license? If it woulf be, what can I do to have an option to use them?
Thank you in advance,
Zdenek
On 8/5/20 7:23 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:15 PM Bryan Sutula bsutula@redhat.com wrote:
(replied earlier but it was moderated...sorry if a duplicate arrives)
On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 14:12 +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
I'm trying to package lprint https://github.com/michaelrsweet/lprint which has Apache Software License 2.0 with exceptions for GPLv2 and LGPLv2.
[...]
Unfortunately, there isn't a valid short name for 'ASL 2.0 with exceptions' at [2] - would it be possible to add the short name into the table or should I just use simple 'ASL 2.0'?
The question of what to name this exception aside, the lprint NOTICE text is only a portion of the LLVM-exception text[3]. The lprint text is awkward in that the first word of the exception is "Additionally" but there's no prior exception text in the lprint NOTICE file for the "Additionally" to refer to. I wonder whether the author might be willing to avoid creating yet another custom exception type, by including the entire LLVM-exception text in the lprint NOTICE file.
Ah, I completely missed that. I suppose it shows that the LLVM exception is not really suitable as a general-purpose (not compiler-specific) exception.
Richard
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:21 AM Zdenek Dohnal zdohnal@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all,
thank you for all the answers!
There was long-term issue (due Apple legal department) about the mentioned license change in CUPS and llvm license was an example how the acceptable license should look like.
After two years NOTICE file was accepted by Apple legal and put in CUPS project as an exception for ASL 2.0 to prevent future licensing problems.
CUPS project lead at that time and the person who did license change, Mike Sweet, left Apple in the meantime and now he is an author of LPrint, which I try to package and he chose the license which CUPS has to prevent any license issues, because LPrint is based on parts of previous CUPS code.
CUPS project in Apple now has a new lead, who is unfortunately unresponsive at the present, so in my opinion changing/updating license within CUPS is not possible, meaning updating lprint license will not happen unless CUPS exception changes.
Then, would it be possible to have:
'Apache-2.0 WITH CUPS-exception'
or
'ASL 2.0 with exceptions'
as a license? If it woulf be, what can I do to have an option to use them?
If I understand correctly, there is no current official SPDX exception for the CUPS exception. There might be some value in getting it added, but I doubt I myself would find the time to do so in the shorter term. :)
Anyway, as for Fedora, I think the easiest thing to do here in the short term is to just use "ASL 2.0" and ignore the exception. I'm not sure I see any major value in having the license tag signal the presence of a license exception, in contrast to cases involving licenses in the GPL family.
Richard
Thank you in advance,
Zdenek
On 8/5/20 7:23 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:15 PM Bryan Sutula bsutula@redhat.com wrote:
(replied earlier but it was moderated...sorry if a duplicate arrives)
On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 14:12 +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
I'm trying to package lprint https://github.com/michaelrsweet/lprint which has Apache Software License 2.0 with exceptions for GPLv2 and LGPLv2.
[...]
Unfortunately, there isn't a valid short name for 'ASL 2.0 with exceptions' at [2] - would it be possible to add the short name into the table or should I just use simple 'ASL 2.0'?
The question of what to name this exception aside, the lprint NOTICE text is only a portion of the LLVM-exception text[3]. The lprint text is awkward in that the first word of the exception is "Additionally" but there's no prior exception text in the lprint NOTICE file for the "Additionally" to refer to. I wonder whether the author might be willing to avoid creating yet another custom exception type, by including the entire LLVM-exception text in the lprint NOTICE file.
Ah, I completely missed that. I suppose it shows that the LLVM exception is not really suitable as a general-purpose (not compiler-specific) exception.
Richard
-- Zdenek Dohnal Software Engineer Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C
Other projects use this "Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception", such as https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasm-tools/ and https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime. They provide Rust crates such as https://crates.io/crates/wat, which I'd like to package in Fedora.
Cf. https://spdx.org/licenses/LLVM-exception.html
As Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception is not listed in Fedora permitted licenses, is it ok to package it? If yes, should I use "ASL 2.0" or "ASL 2.0 WITH LLVM-exception"?
Regards,
-- Olivier Lemasle
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 8:52 AM Olivier Lemasle olem@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Other projects use this "Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception", such as https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasm-tools/ and https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime. They provide Rust crates such as https://crates.io/crates/wat, which I'd like to package in Fedora.
Cf. https://spdx.org/licenses/LLVM-exception.html
As Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception is not listed in Fedora permitted licenses, is it ok to package it? If yes, should I use "ASL 2.0" or "ASL 2.0 WITH LLVM-exception"?
"ASL 2.0 with exceptions" is sufficient.
"ASL 2.0 with exceptions" is sufficient.
Thank you Neal for your answer. However, "ASL 2.0 with exceptions" is not in the licenses list [1]; should it be added?
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 1:19 PM Olivier Lemasle olem@fedoraproject.org wrote:
"ASL 2.0 with exceptions" is sufficient.
Thank you Neal for your answer. However, "ASL 2.0 with exceptions" is not in the licenses list [1]; should it be added?
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
It probably should be.
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 01:21:53PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 1:19 PM Olivier Lemasle olem@fedoraproject.org wrote:
"ASL 2.0 with exceptions" is sufficient.
Thank you Neal for your answer. However, "ASL 2.0 with exceptions" is not in the licenses list [1]; should it be added?
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
It probably should be.
Please also add it as an entry in this file:
https://github.com/rpminspect/rpminspect-data-fedora/blob/master/licenses/fe...
Send a pull request to the rpminspect-data-fedora project.
Thanks,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:20 PM David Cantrell dcantrell@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 01:21:53PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
It probably should be.
Please also add it as an entry in this file:
Let's just stick with Richard's advice on this thread earlier:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:52 PM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
Anyway, as for Fedora, I think the easiest thing to do here in the short term is to just use "ASL 2.0" and ignore the exception.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:25 PM Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:20 PM David Cantrell dcantrell@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 01:21:53PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
It probably should be.
Please also add it as an entry in this file:
Let's just stick with Richard's advice on this thread earlier:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:52 PM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
Anyway, as for Fedora, I think the easiest thing to do here in the short term is to just use "ASL 2.0" and ignore the exception.
-- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
Is that a good idea given that the exception is necessary for GPL applications to link to CUPS?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:31 PM Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:25 PM Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:20 PM David Cantrell dcantrell@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 01:21:53PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
It probably should be.
Please also add it as an entry in this file:
Let's just stick with Richard's advice on this thread earlier:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:52 PM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
Anyway, as for Fedora, I think the easiest thing to do here in the short term is to just use "ASL 2.0" and ignore the exception.
-- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
Is that a good idea given that the exception is necessary for GPL applications to link to CUPS?
The exception is still part of the license; the question is just whether it is a detail that should be reflected in the license metadata.
My argument is that most Fedora users probably won't care, and those that do aren't going to rely on license metadata anyway. Also, "ASL 2.0 with exceptions" doesn't tell you what the exception is, anyway (and a Fedora user might not even be sure that the exception is a permissive exception).
Richard
-
Ben Cotton -
Bryan Sutula -
David Cantrell -
Florian Weimer -
Neal Gompa -
Olivier Lemasle -
Richard Fontana -
Zdenek Dohnal