I've got four licensing questions after reviewing all my packages: 1. perl-Newt: "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself." - it is correct to simply list "License: GPL or Artistic", when this is the only licensing information given? 2. mod_auth_mysql: inaccurate copyright attribution. This package carries ASL 1.1 copyright notices verbatim, including the "Copyright (c) 1995 The Apache Group.", when no copyright assignment to the "Apache Group" has ever taken place. Does that matter? 3. mod_authz_ldap: a convoluted one this; the source files contain the text header: ** Read the files README and mod_authz_ldap.html for instructions on ** configuring the module. Details of the license can be found in the ** HTML documentation. ** ** (c) 2000 Dr. Andreas Mueller ...the HTML docs contain the text: This module is distributed under the terms of the Apache License, please check the LICENSE file in your apache distribution or the COPYING file of the mod_authz_ldap distribution for the exact terms of the license. In particular, the following disclaimer applies: [standard Apache-style warranty disclaimer block] ...and the COPYING file contains the GPLv2 (!). Any guesses on how to intepret that? 4. subversion: source files all reference following URL with GPLv2+-style "or later version" qualifier: http://subversion.tigris.org/license-1.html which is ASL 1.1 with the names changed, and clauses 4 and 5 are changed in the nature of what exactly they restrict. I don't think it's appropriate to simply list this as "ASL 1.1"? Regards, joe _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
