[fab] Fedora as Free Software?
Alexandre Oliva
aoliva at redhat.com
Thu Apr 27 02:20:57 UTC 2006
On Apr 21, 2006, Matt Domsch <matt at domsch.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 08:08:26PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>>
>> > I'm wondering what you guys think about changing the tilt of Fedora from
>> > open source to free software. Namely, saying that the license should
>> > meet the free software definition (
>> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ) and then mentioning that
>> > OSI-certified licenses (with the exception of the Reciprocal Public
>> > License, which we're going to reevaluate) are a good list, as well as
>> > the free software licenses that are listed on the FSF website.
>> >
>> > The goal is to make Fedora a distribution that the FSF can positively
>> > endorse. I think we're really close. Any reason to not try to go all
>> > the way?
>>
>> Do we have an idea of what we would need to drop to be completely free
>> software definition compliant?
>>
>> What would we lose?
>>
>> I guess a few rpm queries on license should work.
>> what licenses are we looking for?
> At a glance of Core -devel, the following packages don't have licenses
> that are explicitly on the FSF's list:
> tog-pegasus Open Group Pegasus Open Source (motif)
> tog-pegasus-devel Open Group Pegasus Open Source
> openmotif Open Group Public License
> openmotif-devel Open Group Public License
> xorg-x11-proto-devel The Open Group License
> xorg-x11-util-macros The Open Group License
> jdepend Clarkware License
> jdepend-demo Clarkware License
> jdepend-javadoc Clarkware License
> adaptx Exolab Software License
> adaptx-doc Exolab Software License
> adaptx-javadoc Exolab Software License
> castor Exolab Software License
> castor-demo Exolab Software License
> castor-doc Exolab Software License
> castor-javadoc Exolab Software License
> castor-test Exolab Software License
> castor-xml Exolab Software License
> latex2html Free To Use But Restricted (See LICENSE)
> tanukiwrapper Tanuki Software License (open source)
> tanukiwrapper-demo Tanuki Software License (open source)
> tanukiwrapper-javadoc Tanuki Software License (open source)
> tanukiwrapper-manual Tanuki Software License (open source)
> libc-client University of Washington Free-Fork License
> libc-client-devel University of Washington Free-Fork License
> xdoclet XDoclet Open Source Licence
> xdoclet-javadoc XDoclet Open Source Licence
> xdoclet-manual XDoclet Open Source Licence
> For that matter, none of these are on the OSI's list either explicitly.
> Then there's all of the "distributable" License tags, and the packages
> marked "various".
> So yes, close, but not a done deal.
David Turner also ran his own license check on my `everything' install
of rawhide. Here's what he found so far:
> Fedora licenses:
> jlex : Free == SML of NJ license (simple permissive)
> * openmotif : Open Group Public License == non-free
> * openmotif-devel : Open Group Public License == non-free
> ? libc-client : University of Washington Free-Fork License == I read this and
> I still can't figure out if it's free. I think it's probably not, because
> of clause 9 (which purports to bind the rest of the world by US law), but
> maybe that's OK
> ? libc-client-devel : University of Washington Free-Fork License
> ncurses-devel : distributable == mostly simple permissive, some GPL, some LGPL. Many files missing notices (wrote to maintainers)
> ncurses : distributable == as above, OK
> docbook-style-dsssl : Distributable == simple permissive with rename
> (versioning) clause. gpl-incompatible but free. OK
> gnuplot : Redistributable, with restrictions == last I checked, the gnuplot
> license was free, OK
> eruby-libs : distributable == LGPL
> castor-javadoc : Exolab Software License == Apache 1.1, OK
> astor : Exolab Software License == OK
> castor-xml : Exolab Software License == OK
> castor-test : Exolab Software License == OK
> castor-doc : Exolab Software License
> adaptx-doc : Exolab Software License
> adaptx : Exolab Software License
> adaptx-javadoc : Exolab Software License
> castor-demo : Exolab Software License
> xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-15-75dpi : Various licenses
> fonts-KOI8-R-75dpi : distributable
> gpg-pubkey : pubkey (contains a public key; no software; OK)
> ruby : Distributable == GPL/non-free disjunction, ok
> ruby-irb : Distributable == GPL/non-free, OK
> libjpeg : distributable == simple pemissive, OK
> boost : Boost Software License == OK
> ckermit : Special (see COPYING.TXT.gz) == Non-free
> tanukiwrapper : Tanuki Software License (open source) == MIT, OK
> tanukiwrapper-manual : Tanuki Software License (open source) == MIT, OK
> tanukiwrapper-demo : Tanuki Software License (open source) == MIT, OK
> tanukiwrapper-javadoc : Tanuki Software License (open source) == MIT, OK
> libtiff : distributable == probably incompatible simple permissive
> adjtimex : distributable == GPL
> lslk : Free == simple permissive, maybe incompatible, OK
> perl-URI : Distributable == Perl, ok
> ppp : distributable == mix of GPL-incompatible license, LGPL, GPL. Probably undistributable due to incompatibilities. Otherwise free. Wrote to debian maintainer. He says it's actually OK due to exceptions he requested. OK
> tcp_wrappers : Distributable == BSD-like, OK
> openldap : OpenLDAP == OK
> mx : eGenix.com Public License (Python) == permissive, incompatible, OK
> perl-Net-Telnet : distributable == Perl, OK
> compat-openldap : OpenLDAP == OK
> ? selinux-doc : Public Use License v1.0 == Potentially bogus license -- may actually be public domain. No official ruling on this license, but is almost certainly free.
> openldap-devel : OpenLDAP == OK
> compat-openldap : OpenLDAP == OK
> openldap-servers : OpenLDAP == OK
> openldap-clients : OpenLDAP == OK
> openldap : OpenLDAP == OK
> openldap-servers-sql : OpenLDAP == OK
> ? netpbm : freeware == various licenses, mostly or all free
> ? netpbm-devel : freeware == ditto
> * netpbm-progs : freeware == Contains some files with no license notices. See here for details: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/n/netpbm-free/netpbm-free_10.0-8sarge3/netpbm.copyright
> newt-perl : Artistic == actually, Perl. OK
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Secretary for FSF Latin America http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
More information about the fedora-advisory-board
mailing list