FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Packaging

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-25-2010, 02:18 PM
Martin Gieseking
 
Default Multiple license scenarios

Hi,

I need some enlightenment about multiple license scenarios of packages.
Until now, I thought packagers should mention all distinct licenses in a
spec files's License field that are part of a tarball. Thus, if some
files are licensed under GPLv2+ and some under BSD, we get "GPLv2+ and
BSD". That's how I read the guidelines (e.g.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios)

However, during a review
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=594943#c16) it was stated
that sources with compatible licenses like LGPLv2+ and BSD may be merged
to LGPLv2+. I can't believe that, but might of course be wrong since I'm
not a legal expert. Could anybody shed some light on this?

Regards,
Martin
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 05-25-2010, 02:27 PM
Chen Lei
 
Default Multiple license scenarios

2010/5/25 Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@uos.de>

Hi,

I need some enlightenment about multiple license scenarios of packages.
Until now, I thought packagers should mention all distinct licenses in a

spec files's License field that are part of a tarball. Thus, if some
files are licensed under GPLv2+ and some under BSD, we get "GPLv2+ and
BSD". That's how I read the guidelines (e.g.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios)


However, during a review
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=594943#c16) it was stated
that sources with compatible licenses like LGPLv2+ and BSD may be merged

to LGPLv2+. I can't believe that, but might of course be wrong since I'm
not a legal expert. Could anybody shed some light on this?

Regards,
Martin
--
The package under reivew is actually Mixed Source Licensing Scenario rather than Multiple license scenarios.
*
Chen Lei

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 05-25-2010, 02:43 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Multiple license scenarios

On 05/25/2010 04:18 PM, Martin Gieseking wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need some enlightenment about multiple license scenarios of packages.
> Until now, I thought packagers should mention all distinct licenses in a
> spec files's License field that are part of a tarball. Thus, if some
> files are licensed under GPLv2+ and some under BSD, we get "GPLv2+ and
> BSD". That's how I read the guidelines (e.g.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios)
>
> However, during a review
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=594943#c16) it was stated
> that sources with compatible licenses like LGPLv2+ and BSD may be merged
> to LGPLv2+.
This is correct.

In such cases, the LGPL acts as an "umbrella". I.e. the "package as a
whole" is covered by the LGPL, while individual files are still licensed
by their individual licenses.

> I can't believe that,
Due to the liberal nature of BSD licenses, such cases are very common.

Most prominent example for such a case is glibc. As a whole "it's
GPL'ed", but it contains files being covered my much more liberal licenses.

Ralf
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 05-25-2010, 02:48 PM
Martin Gieseking
 
Default Multiple license scenarios

Am 25.05.2010 16:27, schrieb Chen Lei:
> The package under reivew is actually Mixed Source Licensing Scenario
> rather than Multiple license scenarios.

Nonetheless, even in the guideline about mixed source licensing
scenarios I can't find anything about omitting one of the licenses in
the License field. In the given example, all licenses are mentioned
rather than merged. I'd understand that (GPLv2+) + (GPLv3+) = GPLv3+,
but (LGPLv2+) + (BSD) = LGPLv2+ seems strange to me. Why omit BSD and
not LGPLv2+ then?

Regards,
Martin
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 05-25-2010, 03:42 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Multiple license scenarios

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:48:59PM +0200, Martin Gieseking wrote:
> Am 25.05.2010 16:27, schrieb Chen Lei:
> > The package under reivew is actually Mixed Source Licensing Scenario
> > rather than Multiple license scenarios.
>
> Nonetheless, even in the guideline about mixed source licensing
> scenarios I can't find anything about omitting one of the licenses in
> the License field. In the given example, all licenses are mentioned
> rather than merged. I'd understand that (GPLv2+) + (GPLv3+) = GPLv3+,
> but (LGPLv2+) + (BSD) = LGPLv2+ seems strange to me. Why omit BSD and
> not LGPLv2+ then?
>
Having sources under multiple licenses is tricky. The packager needs to
look at the licenses of the sources, see how they combine to make one or
more end products, and then add the appropriate licenses. For instance:


foo.c (GPLv2+) ----
bar.c (LGPLv2+) ---+---> /usr/bin/foobarbaz (GPLv2+)
baz.c (BSD) ------/

In this example we have three source files with three compatible licenses
leading to a single program. That binary program that we distribute to end
users is licensed GPLv2+ since we can't separate out each of the individual
foo.c, bar.c, and baz.c files to use their functionality separately.
Another example:

foo.c (GPLv2+) ----+----> /usr/bin/foobar (GPLv2+)
bar.c (BSD) ------<
baz.c (BSD) -------+----> /usr/bin/bazbar (?)

Here, we have three source files under two different licenses. The end
result is two separate programs. One of those (foobar) contains GPLv2+ code
and therefore it will be GPLv2+ just like the previous example.

bazbar is trickier. It does not contain any GPLv2+ code so it is possible
that it is BSD licensed. However, you'd want to check if the upstream
package's author makes any claims about this (they may feel that everything
in the tarball is licensed GPLv2+ as part of a complete work) and in
ambiguous cases, may want to run it by legal.

-Toshio
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 05-25-2010, 04:24 PM
Martin Gieseking
 
Default Multiple license scenarios

Am 25.05.2010 17:42, schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
> Having sources under multiple licenses is tricky. The packager needs to
> look at the licenses of the sources, see how they combine to make one or
> more end products, and then add the appropriate licenses. [...]


Toshio,

thanks for your great explanations. They are very helpful, and I've now
got the idea of how to handle the License field properly.

Regards,
Martin
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:15 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org