--- Begin Message ---
- Subject: Free software and Fedora: Dissected
- From: "Tom 'spot' Callaway" <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:13:17 -0500
- Organization: Red Hat
Rahul, please pass the following status report to the Fedora Board.
I am in the process of analyzing the packages currently in Fedora Core
Development to see whether it is possible/feasible to have Fedora Core
exist as a 100% free distribution (by the FSF guidelines). I've spent
the last several days classifying and auditing everything, which is a
very time consuming process. Thankfully, most things are checking out
OK, but there are some packages remaining. I swear, if I never see the
word "distributable" again....the vast majority of the "distributable"
packages are either BSD or MIT/X11 (libdhcp4client and lv are actually
GPL). This report serves two purposes:
1. To provide a status report on my progress (so no one assumes I am
sleeping on this task)
2. To highlight the items that need to be immediately addressed either
by the FSF or Fedora.
As it stands RIGHT NOW, this is where I am:
THE UNKNOWNS (3):
Packages of questionable licenses that I have yet to fully analyze:
#######################################################################
PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes
#######################################################################
crypto-utils || Various || Multiple licenses (9)
netpbm-* || freeware || Complicated (1)
symlinks || distributable || License unknown (11)
THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS (6):
Packages of questionable licenses that need to be blessed or damned by
the FSF:
#######################################################################
PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes
#######################################################################
cleanfeed || distributable || Can't sell it? (8)
ImageMagick-* || freeware || Examine LICENSE
lha || freeware || Translated license (2)
libc-client-* || U of W Free Fork || Examine CPYRIGHT (3)
selinux-doc || Public Use License || Examine LICENSE (4)
xorg-x11-proto-devel || The Open Group || Examine SGIGLX license (5)
THE KNOWNS (4):
Packages with non-free licenses that need to be taken out of Fedora Core
and moved to Fedora Extras (or trashed entirely)
#######################################################################
PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes
#######################################################################
aspell-nl || distributable || Can't make changes (6)
ckermit || Special || Nothing depends on it
macutils || distributable || Complicated (10)
openmotif-* || Open Group Public || NOT FSF Compatible (7)
Everything else in Fedora Core checks out with an FSF compatible
license. More to come, stay tuned. :)
Side notes:
(1): Netpbm and friends are a huge mess of mixed code, some without
attribution. Starting with the excellent copyright analysis done by
Debian, found here:
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/n/netpbm-free/netpbm-free_10.0-8sarge3/netpbm.copyright
In addition, the LZW patent has expired, so ppmtogif is ok. Fedora
Core's netpbm-progs package doesn't have jbigtopnm or pnmtojbig
(although, they are still in the SRPM). The badly licensed hpcdtoppm
isn't in the Fedora package in either source or binary format.
This only leaves the bits that are listed in the Debian copyright as
"Unknown, So Not Distributed". So, lets try to resolve those:
pamchannel: Public Domain (OK)
pamtopnm: Public Domain (OK)
pbmto4425: Copyright held by Robert Perlberg in 1993. Emailed author.
Author responds! (OK)
From:
Robert Perlberg
<perl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Tom 'spot' Callaway
<tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:
Re: Trying to find Robert Perlberg,
copyright holder for Pbmto4425
Date:
Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:42:13 -0400
(12:42 CDT)
I am indeed the Robert Perlberg who wrote pbmto4425. I'm amazed that
anyone still cares about that program. *I* don't even use it any
more. :-)
I'm not sure what you're looking for in the way of licensing info.
It's just something I posted to net.sources a long time ago. So, yes,
it is freeware, open source code. That is, until people stop using
high resolution color graphics displays and go back to using ASCII
terminals, then I'll really clean up, baby! :-)
Thank for your interest.
pbmtoln03: Copyright implicit by author Tim Cook (1993). Emailed author.
pbmtolps: Copyright implicit by author George Phillips. Cannot find
current email for author.
pbmtopk/pktopbm/: Adapted from pxtopk.c by Tomas Rokicki. He describes
pxtopk.c as "freely available" in this USENET post from 1987:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.atari.st/tree/browse_frm/month/1987-05/a784b97b87f86f86?rnum=91&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.sys.atari.st%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F1987-05%3F
Author of pbmtopk is Angus Duggan, implicit copyright 1990. He disclaims
warranty here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.text.tex/browse_thread/thread/fe76d180970e43d4/7ce043d214cb93a1?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2&hl=en#7ce043d214cb93a1
Emailed author.
ppmtopjxl: Also by Angus Duggan, emailed author.
spottopgm: By Warren Toomey, emailed author.
(2): LHA's license needs to be audited by the FSF
Original Authors License Statement (from man/lha.man and translated by Osamu Aoki <debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):
Permission is given for redistribution, copy and modification provided following conditions are met.
1. Do not remove copyright clause.
2. Distribution shall conform:
a. The content of redistribution (i.e., source code, documentation and reference guide for programmers) shall include original contents.
If contents are modified and the document clearly indicating the fact of modification must be included.
b. If LHa is redistributed with added values and you must put your best effort to include them (Translator comment: If read literally and original Japanese was unclear what “them” means here. But undoubtedly this “them” means source code for the added value portion and this is a typical Japanese sloppy writing style to abbreviate as such) Also the document clearly indicating that added value was added must be included.
c. Binary only distribution is not allowed (including added value ones.)
3. You need to put effort to distribute the latest version (This is not your duty).
NB: Distribution ON Internet is free. Please notify me by e-mail or other means prior to the distribution if distribution is done through non-Internet media (Magazine and CDROM etc.) If not and make sure to Email me later.
4. Any damage caused by the existence and use of this PROGRAM will not be compensated.
5. Author will not be responsible to correct errors even if PROGRAM is defective.
6. This PROGRAM, either as a part of this or as a whole of this and may be included into other programs. In this case and that PROGRAM is not LHa and can not call itself LHa.
7. For commercial use, in addition to above conditions and following condition needs to be met.
a. The PROGRAM whose content is mainly this PROGRAM can not be used commercially.
b. If the recipient of commercial use deems inappropriate as a PROGRAM user, you must not distribute.
c. If used as a method for the installation and you must not force others to use this PROGRAM. In this case, commercial user will perform its work while taking FULL responsibility of its outcome.
d. If added value is done under the commercial use by using this PROGRAM, commercial user shall provide its support.
(Osamu Aoki also comments:
Here “commercial” may be interpreted as “for-fee”. “Added value” seems to mean “feature enhancement”. )
Translated License Statement by Tsugio Okamoto (translated by GOTO Masanori <gotom@xxxxxxxxxx>):
It's free to distribute ON the network and but if you distribute for the people who cannot access the network (by magazine or CD-ROM), please send E-Mail (Inter-Net address) to the author before the distribution. That's well where this software is appeard.
If you cannot do and you must send me the E-Mail later.
Nothing in Fedora Core requires lha, I'd say it should be moved to
Extras.
(3): The University of Washington Free-Fork License is VERY weird. It's
mostly OK, but then it goes off into left field. The FSF will need to
decide if its too much or not. If we need to move this to Fedora Extras,
then php-imap will have to be enabled in the php-extras Extras package,
but this should be a pretty easy switch (and php-imap is the only
dependent package). Also, CPYRIGHT is not a typo.
(4): There is a LICENSE file in the source tree. This needs to be
reviewed by the FSF to determine if it is kosher.
(5): xorg-x11-proto-devel claims it is under "The Open Group License",
which is just MIT/X11, however, it also includes GLX headers that are
under the SGI GLX license. The SGI GLX license can be found here:
http://www.sgi.com/software/opensource/glx/license.html
(6): The Copyright in the aspell-nl source tree says:
"All provided material can be used freely. Copying is only allowed if
the package is distributed complete and unchanged. We plan to update
the package on a regular basis. Bug reports and bugfixes are welcomed."
This license doesn't permit modified redistribution, so this is right
out. On top of that, Fedora _IS_ patching it, so we're in violation.
Nothing requires aspell-nl explicitly, so moving this to FE makes sense.
(7): Yeah, its time to let Motif go. The license here is obviously not
FSF compatible. In Fedora Core development, this has four dependent
packages (a lot more in Extras, so we probably can't nuke it from
orbit):
- ddd (nothing depends on it, should go to FE)
- tetex-xdvi (if we pass --with-xdvi-x-toolkit=xaw to configure, we
eliminate the motif dependency)
- xpdf (nothing seems to explicitly depend on it, with evince around,
this can probably go to FE)
- mesa-libGLw (this guy is hard. we could disable motif support for this
library, but as Bugzilla 175251 points out, it is kindof worthless
without it. Also does not seem to be trivial to move into its own
subpackage, but nothing in Core requires it. Might have to bribe Mike
Harris to help us move this to Extras.)
(8): Cleanfeed's license reads:
LICENSE
This software may be distributed freely, provided it is intact
(including all the files from the original archive). You may modify it,
and you may distribute your modified version, provided the original work
is credited to the appropriate authors, and your work is credited to you
(don’t make changes and pass them off as my work), and that you aren’t
charging for it.
FSF needs to yay or nay that last part about "not charging for it".
Nothing depends on cleanfeed.
(9): Crypto-utils has:
- librand (AT&T BSD, OK)
- Makerand (perl code, no license, emailed author)
- keyrand (PGP license? FSF needs to audit)
(10): macutils has:
no license, no copyright, but code it was based on was (c) 1984 Brown
University * may be used but not sold without permission
Nothing depends on this, it should be moved to FE.
(11): No license in the code, emailed the author.
~spot
--
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
--- End Message ---
