On Apr 21, 2006, Matt Domsch <matt@xxxxxxxxxx> 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}
