Re: Question about public domain file in dictd

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Speaking as an experienced packager, not a member of the Fedora legal team:

Although some authors conflate it with “public domain,” CC0-1.0 is just one type of ultra-permissive license. It is not-allowed for code in Fedora due to concerns about patent-related language in the actual CC0-1.0 license, not due to a general prohibition on public-domain dedications or ultra-permissive licenses.

The md5.c file you mention does not reference CC0-1.0 at all, and is in fact under a simple “public-domain dedication” that would be assigned the SPDX id LicenseRef-Fedora-PublicDomain.

You do need to submit the text for review and tracking under the process outlined in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/#_public_domain, but I have no doubt that it will be approved; this is a straightforward public-domain dedication, and this particular md5 implementation is very widespread and well-known and already bundled in many of packages in Fedora. In fact, under the old rules for bundling that required explicit exceptions, this MD5 implementation was one of the documented “copylibs,” https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries_Virtual_Provides#cite_note-2.

On 2/28/24 9:57 AM, Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez wrote:
Hi,

I have been preparing a new update to dictd, and while doing it, I ran the licensecheck to double-check and cleanup the license tag.

I found out that the licenses involved in the source code for the new 1.13.1 are more than originally specified in 1.12.x. There is a COPYING file with GPL-2.0-only, but the source code files have more. The final list is:

  GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-1.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later
  AND MIT AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause

There is one file in the source code that claims to be "public domain" [1]:


  This code was written by Colin Plumb in 1993, no copyright is claimed.
  This code is in the public domain; do with it what you wish


This file is indeed code, so the allowed content exception for CC0-1.0 doesn't apply. The file is not written by the upstream maintainer but appears to be authored by someone else not in the maintainer list. I'm not sure how to proceed here. I could request the upstream developer to see if he can change the license but not sure will be able since it is not his. Would this be a valid case for Unlicense?


[1] https://github.com/cheusov/dictd/blob/1.13.1/md5.c




Thank you,
Carlos R.F.

--
_______________________________________________
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux