I was referred to this mailing list by https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Discussion_of_Licensing. I have thoroughly attempted to answer my own questions by reading the available resources and looking at existing packages. However, I have much uncertainty on how I should proceed regarding the licensing.
The package in question contains a web application similar in package contents to wordpress or phpMyAdmin. The bulk content of the package consists of interpreted code such as PHP and _javascript_. There aren't any executable binaries being compiled or packaged. The source files that I and the other upstream developers create is licensed under AGPLv3.
The following lists a name, license and brief for each third-party source file group/library:
NAME: ezSQL
LICENSE: LGPL
BRIEF: Third-party PHP source files
NAME: jQuery
LICENSE: MIT or GPLv2
BRIEF: Third-party _javascript_ source file
NAME: Sizzle
LICENSE: MIT or BSD or GPL
BRIEF: Third-party _javascript_ source file
NAME: jqXslTransform
LICENSE: MIT
BRIEF: Third-party _javascript_ source file
NAME: jqLayout
LICENSE: MIT or GPL
BRIEF: Third-party _javascript_ source file
NAME: jqForm
LICENSE: MIT or GPL
BRIEF: Third-party _javascript_ source file
NAME: jqUI
LICENSE: MIT or GPL
BRIEF: Third-party _javascript_ source files
NAME: jsTree
LICENSE: MIT or GPL
BRIEF: Third-party _javascript_ source files
NAME: Sarissa
LICENSE: ASL 2.0 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+
BRIEF: Third-party _javascript_ source files
NAME: Plupload
LICENSE: GPLv2
BRIEF: Third-party _javascript_ and PHP source files
NAME: Gears Init
LICENSE: BSD 3-clause no advertising
BRIEF: Third-party _javascript_ source file
NAME: BrowserPlus Gateway
LICENSE: MPLv1.1
BRIEF: Third-party _javascript_ source file
NAME: CodeMirror
LICENSE: zlib
BRIEF: Third-party _javascript_ source files
NAME: ParsePHP
LICENSE: BSD 3-clause no advertising
BRIEF: Third-party _javascript_ source files
The current RPM Spec license field for the package in question is:
License: AGPLv3 and GPLv2 and LGPLv2+ and MPLv1.1 and zlib and BSD and (MIT or GPLv2) and (MIT or BSD or GPLv2+) and (ASL 2.0 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+)
I'm NOT sure that the above license field is correct.
Please, assist me in answering the following questions.
Is it acceptable in this specific case for approval as a Fedora package to simply put 'License: AGPLv3' as the license field of the RPM Spec file? And is it required in this case for approval as a Fedora package to express all the third-party source group/library licenses in the RPM Spec file license field?
Is it required in this case for approval as a Fedora package to include in the package a separate relevant license text file for every third-party source group/library?
Please, assist me in specifying the proper RPM Spec license field for approval as a Fedora package.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
