On 1/3/23 7:56 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 9:05 AM David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Happy New Year, everyone!
Among the various packages I maintain is one called x11-ssh-askpass. The
project itself is old but still runs and there are users. I am trying to
generate an SPDX license expression for this package and am asking for help
for clarification.
x11-ssh-askpass uses code from xscreensaver (jwz.org/xscreensaver). In the
Fedora package for xscreensaver we call it MIT licensed. The xscreensaver
project provides sample spec file to build and RPM and in that spec file they
call themselves BSD licensed. However, I see this at least in xscreensaver.c:
/* xscreensaver, Copyright © 1991-2022 Jamie Zawinski <jwz@xxxxxxx>
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and its
* documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that
* the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that
* copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
* documentation. No representations are made about the suitability of this
* software for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or
* implied warranty.
*
Would we call this MIT?
In Callaway, yes, but not in SPDX.
It begins mostly the same way but reduces the as-is
paragraph to I guess the last two sentences. Or would this be more ISC or
even HPND? ISC doesn't feel right but also feels less wrong somehow to me.
HPND....???
The closest is HPND-sell. For some background: HPND is not a 'real'
license in the sense that it was not conceived of as a license for use
but rather was, apparently, an effort by the OSI or someone making use
of the OSI process (I still haven't tracked down how this happened
historically) to sort of ratify a large set of similar historical
licenses in what we might call the MIT family. The result is a sort of
ill-defined OSI-approved set of license permutations that in a sense
anticipated the activity undertaken by SPDX many years later. SPDX,
because it is dedicated to having all OSI-approved licenses in its
list, has HPND, but has probably made the best attempt possible to
make rationalized sense of what the OSI means by HPND. The 'sell
variant' was discovered later on and does not fit into the OSI
template. I think SPDX may have defined HPND-sell on the assumption
that it would have the same range of permutations as HPND, but I'm not
sure.
Anyway this is how HPND-sell is defined:
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/src/HPND-sell-variant.xml
I *think* that almost covers the license you quote but probably needs
to be adjusted a bit. I suggest submitting an issue to
github.com/SPDX/License-List-XML. Or maybe Jilayne thinks the answer
here is more obvious than I do :)
agree, we can use HPND-sell-variant for this one, which is already in
the fedora-license-data
With the xscreensaver license sorted out, that leaves the remaining original
code in x11-ssh-askpass which carries this license:
The remaining portions fall under the following copyright and license:
by Jim Knoble <jmknoble@xxxxxxxxx>
Copyright (C) 1999,2000,2001 Jim Knoble
Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software
and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and
that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
supporting documentation.
+------------+
| Disclaimer |
+------------+
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
express or implied, including but not limited to the warranties of
merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and
noninfringement. In no event shall the author(s) be liable for any
claim, damages or other liability, whether in an action of contract,
tort or otherwise, arising from, out of or in connection with the
software or the use or other dealings in the software.
Again....MIT, ISC, HPND, something else? Anyone have any ideas?
I think this is another one that is closest to HPND-sell but doesn't
quite match.
it is close, but no cigar... I think we need a new issue in
fedora-license-data, TOML file, and submit to SPDX. sigh
J.
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
