https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=632853 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #37 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Mathieu Bridon from comment #35) > 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 I don't actually see this file in the pptpd package, but I looked at the one in the ppp-devel package and it is a variant of the "BSD with Attribution" license, so just add that to the License tag if it is actually in the pptpd package. > The following files are said to be copied from RFC 1662: > > - ppphdlc.c > - ppphdlc.h These are clearly derived from the pptpclient source by C. S. Ananian, which is GPLv2+, so these files can be considered to be under that license as well. Assuming that the pppd.h file isn't in pptpd, the license tag should be: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ Lifting FE-Legal. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- 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