1) If some files of a program are BSD and some are GPLv2, is it necessary to include the BSD license file in the rpm package (even if upstream doesn't)?
2) Can someone take a look at the Adobe Glyph List license [http://www.adobe.com/devnet/opentype/archives/glyphlist.txt] and determine what is the appropriate rpm license field for it?
If you want more context, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458430
Thanks, Vasile
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 22:11 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote:
- If some files of a program are BSD and some are GPLv2, is it
necessary to include the BSD license file in the rpm package (even if upstream doesn't)?
We don't require that you add any missing license files in these scenarios. You might want to recommend that upstream include a copy of the license, but as long as the license appears in the source code, this is not required (for BSD).
The rule is: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, must be included as documentation.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- Can someone take a look at the Adobe Glyph List license
[http://www.adobe.com/devnet/opentype/archives/glyphlist.txt] and determine what is the appropriate rpm license field for it?
Need to run that one past the lawyers... it is worded strangely.
~spot
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 22:11 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote:
- Can someone take a look at the Adobe Glyph List license
[http://www.adobe.com/devnet/opentype/archives/glyphlist.txt] and determine what is the appropriate rpm license field for it?
License: MIT
Its a screwed up variant, but the end result is the same.
~spot
Interesting outcome. Does that mean I don't have to mention it at if it's included in a GPLv2 package?
As a footnote, Werner Lemberg asked Eddie Kohler a while back to remove his (that is Eddie's) changes from the file because of the "No modification, editing or other alteration of this document is allowed" clause in the license. They, meaning Adobe, seem to contradict themselves later on with: # Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a # copy of this documentation file, to create their own derivative works # from the content of this document to use, copy, publish, distribute, # sublicense, and/or sell the derivative works, and to permit others to do # the same, provided that the derived work is not represented as being a # copy or version of this document. which allows modifications as long as you don't attribute them to Adobe. So Eddie can change it, but has to call it "Eddie's glyph list". LOL.
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Tom spot Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 22:11 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote:
- Can someone take a look at the Adobe Glyph List license
[http://www.adobe.com/devnet/opentype/archives/glyphlist.txt] and determine what is the appropriate rpm license field for it?
License: MIT
Its a screwed up variant, but the end result is the same.
~spot
Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list