On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 6:03 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:59 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 8:16 AM Jaroslav Skarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:41 AM David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Back to the original question... what short name do we give this license? > > > > > > > > > > > > - It has an advertising clause > > > > > > - It forbids relicensing under any form of the GPL (curious what that > > > > > > means > > > > > > for potential derivative works) > > > > > > - And it has the postcard/QSL card request, sort of like vim's donation > > > > > > request > > > > > > > > > > > > License: BSD with oddities > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > License: Difficult > > > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > It actually has some text in common with the Beer-ware license. At > > > > > least if this is the license of the entire package, or a substantial > > > > > part of it, I would suggest an identifier specific to this license, > > > > > perhaps "Diane Bruce [License]" (if I'm correct that the > > > > > author/licensor here is the FreeBSD developer Diane Bruce). > > > > > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > It seems Debian ships the code with the following license: > > > > > > > > Copyright: (C) Diane Bruce <db@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > License: Permissive > > > > > > > > thanks & regards > > > > > > > > Jaroslav > > > > > > So could anybody authoritatively reply the following questions? > > > > > > 1) Can the code be packaged to Fedora? > > > > Yes, it's a free software, GPL-incompatible license by Fedora's standards. > > > > > 2) How to name the license? > > > > I don't have a good suggestion here (other than my suggestion of > > "Diane Bruce" above). It's unlikely this license would be found > > anywhere else. I found it intriguing that Debian apparently uses the > > label "Permissive", I assume as a catchall for various one-off > > nonstandard noncopyleft FOSS licenses? I don't think that's an > > approach Fedora has attempted to take but it might be worth > > considering. > > > > Debian can do that because the debian/copyright file has the license > verbatim in there. And generally debian/copyright files are > machine-parseable, but not guaranteed to be correct. > > And more importantly, the license can be viewed before installing the > package, since that data is extracted. > > We could go with "Semi-Permissive" and indicate in the docs that > packages with that title have terms in the license file. Indeed, "Semi-Permissive" is probably better than "Permissive" in this case. Richard _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
