https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=632853 --- Comment #35 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Copy-pasting my licensing doubts in this comment, to make it easier for the legal folks to review. Note that the ppp header has been unbundled. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. The following files are GPLv2+: - bcrelay.c - plugins/pptpd-logwtmp.c - tools/vpnstats.pl The following files are under the LGPLv2+ license. (they are copied from the glibc) - getopt1.c - getopt.c - our_getopt.h The following files are under a BSD that I've never seen before, and isn't even in the wiki page: - plugins/pppd.h => This is copy-pasted from the ppp project, which is in Fedora. So you will have to either unbundle or ask FESCo for an exception. Note that there are differences with the file from the ppp-devel package. => Irrelevant from whether you can keep this bundled, I'm a bit worried about this BSD-like license. It's not in the Fedora wiki, so at the very least I'd like to ask Fedora Legal to take note of it. Also, it is similar to this one, which is said to be incompatible with the GPL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD#Advertising_Variant The following files are said to be copied from RFC 1662: - ppphdlc.c - ppphdlc.h => There are no license for these files, neither in pptpd nor in the text of the RFC (at least I couldn't find any). I'm not sure what that means, so I'd like to have Fedora Legal's advice on this. As for the rest of the files, they just don't have any copyright header. However, the man pages for pptpd(8) and pptpctrl(8) both state that pptpd is GPLv2+, so at the very least we can assume that the intent of the author is for the source files which get built as /usr/sbin/pptpd and /usr/sbin/pptpctrl to be GPLv2+. Looking at how the stuff is built, that would be: - compat.c - compat.h - configfile.c - configfile.h - ctrlpacket.c - ctrlpacket.h - defaults.h - inststr.c - inststr.h - our_syslog.h - pptpctrl.c - pptpctrl.c - pptpctrl.h - pptpd.c - pptpdefs.h - pptpgre.h - pptpmanager.c - pptpmanager.h - pqueue.c - pqueue.h Remaining are 3 files: - tools/pptp-portslave - tools/vpnstats - tools/vpnuser => Given that they come from the same authors, I'd be happy to assume that they are intended to be GPLv2+ like the rest of pptpd. => So, given all that, I'm honestly not sure what the right License tag should be for this package, or even if it's really acceptable in Fedora, so I'm blocking FE-LEGAL to ask for guidance. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review