Is this license ok for a package in Fedora (i.e. metasploit)? The full text can be found here[0].
[0]: http://metasploit.com/svn/framework3/trunk/documentation/LICENSE
PS: I'm not subscribed to fedora-legal so please CC replies to me.
Regards,
I'm learning how to package RPM:s according to the Fedora rules, and have come to the license. My first package, ttf2pt1, has a home-brewn variant of the BSD license, which I attach.
A few individual files in the package have different licenses. In some case it's GPLv2+ licensed, but some scripts have a separate short license which I also attach.
I understand that I should ask here if 1) it is ok to package this program, and 2) what to use in the License tag value.
# Copyright (c) 1998, 1999 # Sergey A. Babkin. All rights reserved. # # Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without # modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions # are met: # 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright # notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. # 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright # notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the # documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. # # THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED # WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF # MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. # # Sergey A. Babkin (sab123@hotmail.com, babkin@bellatlantic.net)
On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 17:42 +0200, Göran Uddeborg wrote:
I'm learning how to package RPM:s according to the Fedora rules, and have come to the license. My first package, ttf2pt1, has a home-brewn variant of the BSD license, which I attach.
A few individual files in the package have different licenses. In some case it's GPLv2+ licensed, but some scripts have a separate short license which I also attach.
I understand that I should ask here if 1) it is ok to package this program, and 2) what to use in the License tag value.
So, the problem here is that the BSD license has the advertising clause, which makes it incompatible with GPL. You will need to get the copyright holders of the code under that BSD license to drop the advertising clause. I'd strongly suggest trying to work with upstream for this.
~spot
"Tom "spot" Callaway" writes:
So, the problem here is that the BSD license has the advertising clause, which makes it incompatible with GPL. You will need to get the copyright holders of the code under that BSD license to drop the advertising clause. I'd strongly suggest trying to work with upstream for this.
I see. I was mostly wondering about the BSD-like licenses not being exactly BSD. I didn't think about this aspect.
I will contact the developers, but I fear this might take a while. ttf2pt1 isn't very actively developed. (Latest release from 2003. Let's call it "mature".)
The script with a GPL license isn't really used by the main program. It is from a separate developer and merely bundled together in the tar archive for some user's convenience. (And might only be useful on SUSE anyway, according to the comments.)
Could I avoid this problem by not including these scripts in the package instead? ttf2pt1 proper would not loose anything. Or would this not help, since the SRPM would include the tar archive where the different files are bundled?
"Tom "spot" Callaway" writes:
So, the problem here is that the BSD license has the advertising clause, which makes it incompatible with GPL.
I'd strongly suggest trying to work with upstream for this.
I brought the issue up on the ttf2pt1 mailing list. (You can see parts of the communication at http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=ttf2pt1-users&ma... but some mails were sent off list too.)
The project does not seem to think there is a problem. As I understand it because the GPL scripts are not really part of the BSD-licensed ttf2pt1 itself. It is only an "aggregate" in the GPL terms. To express it a bit better, here are a few cuts from the README for the contributed GPL scripts:
The tiny Perl-script 'sfd2map' converts .sfd files (as used by CJK-LaTeX) to .map files (as used by ttf2pt1). ... ... another small script 'cjk-latex-config' ... which creates .tfm files usable with CJK-LaTeX from TrueType fonts as listed in /etc/ttf2pk/ttfonts.map. When called like cjk-latex-config --type1 this script will use ttf2pt1 to generate .pfb files as well from these TrueType fonts to be used with CJK-LaTeX.
So a script may call the ttf2pt1 program, but otherwise they just produce data for each other.
Would you agree that the packaging of these scripts together with ttf2pt1 proper be legal according to the license? Or should I exclude them from the package anyway?
(It doesn't matter to me personally, I don't understand CJK characters anyway. :-) But I guess there are people out there who could have a use for these scripts.)
On Sun, 2008-09-14 at 17:11 +0200, Göran Uddeborg wrote:
Would you agree that the packaging of these scripts together with ttf2pt1 proper be legal according to the license? Or should I exclude them from the package anyway?
So, given the context, I would agree.
GPLv2 says:
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License
It really does depend on the situation, are these scripts part of the "Program" or simply aggregated along with the "Program"? Given your description, it seems like they are just included for convenience.
You can include them in the package if you want, and if you do, note them in the license tag like this:
License: GPLv2+ and BSD with advertising
Nevertheless, I would _still_ encourage upstream to drop the advertising clause, just to clear up the issue entirely. You should point out to them that the original BSD Author (University of Berkeley) has dropped the clause (for all items which they are the copyright holder), and ask them if they are willing to do the same (if they're the copyright holder for those scripts).
See: ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
~spot