sorry for the duplicate post, but I am afraid fedora-extras-list was not the best place for this...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gianluca Sforna giallu@gmail.com Date: Mar 30, 2007 10:41 AM Subject: Licensing issue in mantis To: Discussion related to Fedora Extras fedora-extras-list@redhat.com
Mantis (php) codebase includes a module which comes from a 3rd party project and is licensed with a "free for non commercial use" style clause which is, AFAICT, incompatible with the GPL. Is removing the offending file from the rpm package during %install enough? Is upstream compelled to remove it as well?
Gianluca Sforna wrote:
sorry for the duplicate post, but I am afraid fedora-extras-list was not the best place for this...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gianluca Sforna giallu@gmail.com Date: Mar 30, 2007 10:41 AM Subject: Licensing issue in mantis To: Discussion related to Fedora Extras fedora-extras-list@redhat.com
Mantis (php) codebase includes a module which comes from a 3rd party project and is licensed with a "free for non commercial use" style clause which is, AFAICT, incompatible with the GPL. Is removing the offending file from the rpm package during %install enough?
Yes (imo).
-- Rex
Rex Dieter wrote:
Gianluca Sforna wrote:
sorry for the duplicate post, but I am afraid fedora-extras-list was not the best place for this...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gianluca Sforna giallu@gmail.com Date: Mar 30, 2007 10:41 AM Subject: Licensing issue in mantis To: Discussion related to Fedora Extras fedora-extras-list@redhat.com
Mantis (php) codebase includes a module which comes from a 3rd party project and is licensed with a "free for non commercial use" style clause which is, AFAICT, incompatible with the GPL. Is removing the offending file from the rpm package during %install enough?
Yes (imo).
On second thought, it probably ought to be removed from the source tarball, on the chance that possible commercial use makes the srpm non-re-distributable (depends on the exactly licensing terms, I guess).
-- Rex
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 09:25 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
Gianluca Sforna wrote:
sorry for the duplicate post, but I am afraid fedora-extras-list was not the best place for this...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gianluca Sforna giallu@gmail.com Date: Mar 30, 2007 10:41 AM Subject: Licensing issue in mantis To: Discussion related to Fedora Extras fedora-extras-list@redhat.com
Mantis (php) codebase includes a module which comes from a 3rd party project and is licensed with a "free for non commercial use" style clause which is, AFAICT, incompatible with the GPL. Is removing the offending file from the rpm package during %install enough?
Yes (imo).
On second thought, it probably ought to be removed from the source tarball, on the chance that possible commercial use makes the srpm non-re-distributable (depends on the exactly licensing terms, I guess).
Yeah, you'll need to remove it from the Source tarball. Just take it out of the Source tarball, rename it to note that it is modified, and make a comment in the spec file explaining why.
~spot
On 3/30/07, Tom spot Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 09:25 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
Gianluca Sforna wrote:
sorry for the duplicate post, but I am afraid fedora-extras-list was not the best place for this...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gianluca Sforna giallu@gmail.com Date: Mar 30, 2007 10:41 AM Subject: Licensing issue in mantis To: Discussion related to Fedora Extras fedora-extras-list@redhat.com
Mantis (php) codebase includes a module which comes from a 3rd party project and is licensed with a "free for non commercial use" style clause which is, AFAICT, incompatible with the GPL. Is removing the offending file from the rpm package during %install enough?
Yes (imo).
On second thought, it probably ought to be removed from the source tarball, on the chance that possible commercial use makes the srpm non-re-distributable (depends on the exactly licensing terms, I guess).
Yeah, you'll need to remove it from the Source tarball. Just take it out of the Source tarball, rename it to note that it is modified, and make a comment in the spec file explaining why.
Ok. I assume this is to be done also upstream, that is, they can not continue shipping it in the same tarball?
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 16:57 +0200, Gianluca Sforna wrote:
On 3/30/07, Tom spot Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 09:25 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
Gianluca Sforna wrote:
sorry for the duplicate post, but I am afraid fedora-extras-list was not the best place for this...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gianluca Sforna giallu@gmail.com Date: Mar 30, 2007 10:41 AM Subject: Licensing issue in mantis To: Discussion related to Fedora Extras fedora-extras-list@redhat.com
Mantis (php) codebase includes a module which comes from a 3rd party project and is licensed with a "free for non commercial use" style clause which is, AFAICT, incompatible with the GPL. Is removing the offending file from the rpm package during %install enough?
Yes (imo).
On second thought, it probably ought to be removed from the source tarball, on the chance that possible commercial use makes the srpm non-re-distributable (depends on the exactly licensing terms, I guess).
Yeah, you'll need to remove it from the Source tarball. Just take it out of the Source tarball, rename it to note that it is modified, and make a comment in the spec file explaining why.
Ok. I assume this is to be done also upstream, that is, they can not continue shipping it in the same tarball?
While this is something that we would like to encourage upstream to do (either relicense it without the commercial use restriction or pull the code out entirely), it is not required. You only need to do this to meet Fedora requirements.
~spot
On 3/30/07, Tom spot Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
Ok. I assume this is to be done also upstream, that is, they can not continue shipping it in the same tarball?
While this is something that we would like to encourage upstream to do (either relicense it without the commercial use restriction or pull the code out entirely), it is not required. You only need to do this to meet Fedora requirements.
Well. They can not relicense it because it's not under their copyright, but it comes from a 3rd party project (http://php-flp.sourceforge.net/); I'll ask them to try replacing it with something providing the same functionality (it's a rss feed generator php class)
thanks for your help
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Gianluca Sforna -
Rex Dieter -
Tom Callaway