Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
Here is the latest status update on the FSF Free Software audit of
Fedora:
* FSF gave me answers on some of the licenses, still have to
review the others (waiting on lha, libc-client, xorg-x11-proto-devel).
* cdrtools is back to the GPL only version, so it is resolved.
* aspell-nl moved to the GPL licensed package, so it is resolved.
* crypto-utils got new GPL code to replace the PGP licensed bits,
so it is now resolved (thanks Joe Orton!).
* ckermit was removed from Fedora, so it is resolved (thanks Jesse
Keating!).
* macutils was removed from Fedora, so it is resolved (thanks Jesse
Keating, Bill Nottingham).
* netpbm had all of the unlicensed or improper files removed from the
source tarball, so it is resolved (thanks Jindrich Novy!).
* FSF says ImageMagick's license is OK (Free, GPL-compat), so it is resolved.
* FSF says selinux-doc's license is OK (Free, GPL-incompat), so it is resolved.
* FSF says cleanfeed's license is non-free, so we need to deal with it. Bugzilla filed.
Thank you again spot. I have been following all the developments on this
with great interest having initiated the discussion.
Since you have contact many developers and the FSF offlist it would help
if we have more public records of the mails send and the responses we
received for auditing reasons. I was creating a page and documenting the
history of these discussions and current status and it is available at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FreeSoftwareAnalysis
It would helpful if you could attach a copy of all the offlist
discussions to this page.
* Next week, I'll try to test lesstif as a replacement for openmotif.
Note that openmotif is not even a open source license so moving it to
Fedora Extras is not the right decision and is in violation of our
packaging guidelines. We need to move into lesstif, use other toolkits
as options, put it patches when available, drop packages and so on.
Looking at what Debian does on each of the openmotif dependencies in
Fedora Core and Fedora Extras could help us resolve this easier
We're almost there. After FC-6 releases, I'll start an audit on Fedora Extras.
THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS (3):
Packages of questionable licenses that need to be blessed or damned by
the FSF:
#######################################################################
PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes
#######################################################################
lha || freeware || Waiting on FSF
libc-client-* || U of W Free Fork || Waiting on FSF
xorg-x11-proto-devel || The Open Group || Waiting on FSF
THE KNOWNS (2):
Packages with non-free licenses that need to be taken out of Fedora Core
and moved to Fedora Extras (or trashed entirely)
#######################################################################
PACKAGE NAME || RPM provided license || Notes
#######################################################################
cleanfeed || distributable || Bugzilla 203195
openmotif-* || Open Group Public || Bugzilla 202527
Everything else in Fedora Core checks out with an FSF compatible
license.
A few general notes here:
It would be better to standardize on our licensing tags used which is a
TODO item at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo.
Is there any plans to drop the "distributable" tag? It seems very vague.
It would be better to replace this with the actual licenses instead.
I believe we agreed that that licenses indicated in the packages are
merely informative and not legally binding. Do we need the counsel to
cross check on this?
Rahul
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
