On 9/5/05, Toshio Kuratomi <toshio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 13:13 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 23:37:32 -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > > > > > > How are we supposed to deal with cases where the source did not ship a > > > full copy of the license in order to add to %doc easily? We are > > > supposed to add another copy of the license to each SRPM? > > > > Do we have examples for this? (other than a missing GPL "COPYING" file) > > I just imported a LICENSE for pexpect. The license is The Python > Software Foundation license. When I did this, I was a bit confused. > Unlike the GPL, the PSF explicitly names "python" as "the software". > Would the license need to have every instance of python changed to > pexpect? Would this be "relicensing"? > > foremost, which I posted about to fedora-extras earlier is GPL. But due > to its history as a work created by the US Government it was listed as > Public Domain [1] in some places. After exploring with upstream, it was > discovered that most of the "GPL" work done on foremost was also US > Government work and therefore Public Domain [1]. The project had > included one file from another, GPL, project so the FSF analysis still > applied. So in this case, the license file was missing and it was > decidedly non-obvious for a packager how the package should be licensed. > If I had included one license with upstream's blessing but it turned out > that they didn't have the right to use that license, who's at fault? I would get a Fedora Legal written opinion on this, but from what code I deal with from the U.S. Government.. these codes are always in the Public Domain and could not be put under any license/copyright without explicite permission from Congress. Like all things legal.. it would be up to a court to decide who was at fault for wrongly licensing a set of software. -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
