| |
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
|
| |
+ Affero General Public License 3.0 with Zarafa trademark exceptions AGPLv3 with exceptions AGPL-3.0-only WITH <exception identifier> AGPL-3.0-or-later WITH <exception identifier> NO exceptions I don't think we have this exception on the SPDX list - find actual text and add http://www.zarafa.com/content/affero-gplv3 Single product instance
|
| |
+ Array Input Method Public License Array NO only saw license listed for gcin project in Rawhide. downloaded 3.9 and only saw LGPL ?? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Array
|
| |
+ BeOpen Open Source License Agreement Version 1 BeOpen NO not listed in Rawhide - don't add to SPDX https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BeOpen Included on SPDX List as part of the greater Python v2 license. is this used by itself? if so, then add as an individual license (Tom I. did a bunch of research on Python licensing some time ago - that may be useful here) - should we ask Fedora about this, where it's used and frequency? Does Fedora treat the Python stack as separate licenses?
|
| |
+ Bibtex License Bibtex NO did not find in Source Rawhide list check binaries? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Bibtex Permissive license with requirement to rename any modified files. need to consider how to manage variations (see: http://osl.ugr.es/CTAN/biblio/bibtex/contrib/sort-by-letters/README). that is, should we templatize the actual filenames in the ""original"" license version, since they may or may not be included? - should we ask Fedora about this issue, are there variations with other filenames?
|
| |
+ Copyright Attribution Only Copyright only NO category SPDX doesn't accomodate a generic statement - would be good to know more about how this is used https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CopyrightOnly Simple "license" that requires copyright only
|
| |
+ CP/M License CPM NO one-off email "license" (sort of painful to add this to the SPDX License List for obvious reasons...) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CPM
|
| |
+ CRC32 License CRC32 NO super short one-sentence license https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CRC32
|
| |
+ Docbook MIT License DMIT NO looks to be used by docbook project? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/DMIT
|
| |
+ DO WHATEVER PUBLIC LICENSE DWPL NO 2 project listed in Rawhide with this license https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/DWPL Basically Beerware without the buy-me-a-beer part. If used in Fedora, then add to SPDX
|
| |
+ Fedora Directory Server License GPLv2 with exceptions NO exceptions category link to license in Fedora is not found - need help from Fedora as to what this is http://directory.fedoraproject.org/wiki/GPL_Exception_License_Text GPLv2 with exception to link to certain well defined "Approved Interfaces". Add?
|
| |
+ Inner Net License Inner-Net NO in one package - glibc https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Inner_Net_License
|
| |
+ Jabber Open Source License Jabber NO license doesn't appear to be in Fedora, if that's the case, then don't worry about it SPDX to still consider if it should be added as per OSI site http://opensource.org/licenses/jabberpl.php OSI approved, but no longer used Research found that version on OSI site is not the same as version at http://archive.jabber.org/core/JOSL.pdf (substantive diff includes inclusion in the latter of a definition of Source Code and "reasonably necessarly" qualifier in patent grant) see https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/435?p=,,,20,0,0,0::Created,,jabber,20,2,0,22080275 for doc with diff
|
| |
+ JPython License (old) JPython NO not listed in Rawhide http://www.jython.org/license.html link broken, see https://web.archive.org/web/20160310111940/https://www.jython.org/license.html - stack of 3 licenses, each of which can be respresented by SPDX: PSF-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND CNRI-Jython
|
| |
+ Julius License Julius NO project appears to now be under BSD-3-Clause, see https://github.com/julius-speech/julius/blob/master/LICENSE https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Julius Japanese and English text license under Japanese law. FOSS license.
|
| |
+ Knuth License Knuth NO only appears in texlive-base package?? http://tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb11-4/tb30knut.pdf Does not meet FOSS elements. No addition to the code upon death of author, etc.
|
| |
+ GNU Lesser General Public License v2 (or 2.1), with exceptions LGPLv2 with exceptions LGPL-2.0 WITH ... LGPL-2.1 WITH ... YES exceptions category are there any LGPL exceptions actually in use in Fedora? list just says to email list for approval Please be sure that any exceptions are approved by emailing them to legal@lists.fedoraproject.org first.
|
| |
+ GNU Lesser General Public License v2 (or 2.1) or later, with exceptions LGPLv2+ with exceptions LGPL-2.0-or-later WITH ... LGPL-2.1-or-later WITH ... YES exceptions category are there any LGPL exceptions actually in use in Fedora? list just says to email list for approval Please be sure that any exceptions are approved by emailing them to legal@lists.fedoraproject.org first.
|
| |
+ GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 only, with exceptions LGPLv3 with exceptions LGPL-3.0-only WITH ... YES exceptions category are there any LGPL exceptions actually in use in Fedora? list just says to email list for approval Please be sure that any exceptions are approved by emailing them to legal@lists.fedoraproject.org first. No specific exception to approve for SPDX. SPDX uses specific short identifiers for each exception
|
| |
+ GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later, with exceptions LGPLv3+ with exceptions LGPL-3.0-or-later WITH ... YES exceptions category are there any LGPL exceptions actually in use in Fedora? list just says to email list for approval Please be sure that any exceptions are approved by emailing them to legal@lists.fedoraproject.org first. No specific exception to approve for SPDX. SPDX uses specific short identifiers for each exception
|
| |
+ Lhcyr License Lhcyr NO not in current Rawhide list https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Lhcyr Permissive license. old, not worth adding
|
| |
+ Lisp Library General Public License LLGPL NO exceptions license listed fro common-lisp-controller - check still current? A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING f Provides additional definitions to the LGPLv2.1 specific to Lisp programming language.
|
| |
+ Logica Open Source License Logica NO not listed in Rawhide list http://opensmpp.logica.com/CommonPart/Download/Download.htm Appears to be specific to Logica code and under the laws of Ireland license appears here: https://github.com/OpenSmpp/opensmpp/blob/master/LICENSE_LOGICA, The license indicates that it has been superseded.
|
| |
+ LEGO Open Source License Agreement LOSLA NO not listed in Rawhide list https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/LOSLA
|
| |
+ mecab-ipadic license mecab-ipadic NO listed as a license for packages: mecab-ipadic, mozc fcitx5-mozc - need to download and check actual license text http://www.icot.or.jp/ARCHIVE/terms-and-conditions-for-IFS-J.html Link broken not sure of license terms - text from license cut and pasted into comments, but not sure where it was found... so can't be sure it's what Fedora intended "Copyright 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 Nara Institute of Science and Technology. All Rights Reserved. Use, reproduction, and distribution of this software is permitted. Any copy of this software, whether in its original form or modified, must include both the above copyright notice and the following paragraphs. Nara Institute of Science and Technology (NAIST), the copyright holders, disclaims all warranties with regard to this software, including all implied warranties of merchantability and fitness, in no event shall NAIST be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortuous action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this software. A large portion of the dictionary entries originate from ICOT Free Software. The following conditions for ICOT Free Software applies to the current dictionary as well. Each User may also freely distribute the Program, whether in its original form or modified, to any third party or parties, PROVIDED that the provisions of Section 3 (""NO WARRANTY"") will ALWAYS appear on, or be attached to, the Program, which is distributed substantially in the same form as set out herein and that such intended distribution, if actually made, will neither violate or otherwise contravene any of the laws and regulations of the countries having jurisdiction over the User or the intended distribution itself. NO WARRANTY The program was produced on an experimental basis in the course of the research and development conducted during the project and is provided to users as so produced on an experimental basis. Accordingly, the program is provided without any warranty whatsoever, whether express, implied, statutory or otherwise. The term ""warranty"" used herein includes, but is not limited to, any warranty of the quality, performance, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose of the program and the nonexistence of any infringement or violation of any right of any third party. Each user of the program will agree and understand, and be deemed to have agreed and understood, that there is no warranty whatsoever for the program and, accordingly, the entire risk arising from or otherwise connected with the program is assumed by the user. Therefore, neither ICOT, the copyright holder, or any other organization that participated in or was otherwise related to the development of the program and their respective officials, directors, officers and other employees shall be held liable for any and all damages, including, without limitation, general, special, incidental and consequential damages, arising out of or otherwise in connection with the use or inability to use the program or any product, material or result produced or otherwise obtained by using the program, regardless of whether they have been advised of, or otherwise had knowledge of, the possibility of such damages at any time during the project or thereafter. Each user will be deemed to have agreed to the foregoing by his or her commencement of use of the program. The term ""use"" as used herein includes, but is not limited to, the use, modification, copying and distribution of the program and the production of secondary products from the program. In the case where the program, whether in its original form or modified, was distributed or delivered to or received by a user from any person, organization or entity other than ICOT, unless it makes or grants independently of ICOT any specific warranty to the user in writing, such person, organization or entity, will also be exempted from and not be held liable to the user for any such damages as noted above as far as the program is concerned. ˜˜ ' "
|
| |
+ midnight License midnight NO not listed in current Rawhide list https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/midnight FOSS license for single package
|
| |
+ mod_macro License mod_macro NO not listed in current Rawhide list http://www.cri.ensmp.fr/~coelho/mod_macro/mod_macro/LICENSE link broken - is this it? https://people.apache.org/~fabien/mod_macro/LICENSE also see https://fossies.org/linux/mod_macro/LICENSE
|
| |
+ Newmat License Newmat NO not listed in Rawhide list https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Newmat_License
|
| |
+ Nmap License (not Nmap Public Source License) Nmap NO is in one project in Fedora. Not sure how to deal with, as seems to be both an exception to GPL and explanation of GPL https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Nmap
|
| |
+ OpenPBS License OpenPBS NO listed for torque project, but only see Torque-1.1 license in upstream repo?? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/OpenPBS
|
| |
+ OReilly License OReilly NO only shows up in Rawhide list for http://wsdlpull.sourceforge.net project ?? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/OReilly permissive license
|
| |
+ Par License Par NO doesn't seem to be in Rawhide https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Par
|
| |
+ PlainTeX License PlainTeX NO doesn't seem to be in Rawhide https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/PlainTeX
|
| |
+ Public Domain Public Domain NO SPDX would use specific identifiers for public domain dedications (some of which might be on list) or can add new ones (or use LicenseRef-?" Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. SPDX does nto have a generic identifier - for the following reason: http://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files_(DRAFT)
|
| |
+ Python License Python NO seems to still be in Fedora, see https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-functools32/blob/f28/f/python-functools32.spec check actual text http://www.python.org/2.0.1/license.html link broken. SPDX List has Python-2.0 text at https://docs.python.org/3/license.html is a bit different than Python-2.0 and may not be able to be accomodated via markup
|
| |
+ radvd License radvd NO https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/radvd_License
|
| |
+ REX License REX NO https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/REX
|
| |
+ Rice BSD RiceBSD NO Fedora link works now - license is BSD-3-Clause with an additional clause re: modifications. doesnt seem to appear in Fedora - confirm and if not, then don't add to SPDX https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Rice_BSD_License link is broken, license is old and no current link, also found: http://www.caam.rice.edu/software/ARPACK/RiceBSD.txt which appears that it was changed at some point to be simply a BSD-3-Clause
|
| |
+ Romio License Romio NO Fedora link works now and has licene text. still in Fedora - see https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openmpi/blob/rawhide/f/openmpi.spec confirm and add to sPDX? (similar to existing license) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Romio_License see current license here: https://www.open-mpi.org/community/license.php - it appears that license was changed to BSD-3-Clause, so rejecting, can always add later, if older versions are in wide-use
|
| |
+ RSA License RSA NO https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/RSA
|
| |
+ Rsfs License Rsfs NO confirm no longer in Fedora (and then don't add to SPDX) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Rsfs this text is part of a longer letter and so is making a call of what is the license to begin with - see: http://mirror.utexas.edu/ctan/fonts/rsfs/README
|
| |
+ SCRIP License SCRIP NO https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/SCRIP Way too specific "JL: this seems old and can't find it elsewhere... reject? PM: Add?-found wiki page and code available, although last contribution 3 yrs. ago (see http://oceans11.lanl.gov/trac/SCRIP/wiki ) - too specific, decided not to add"
|
| |
+ SLIB License SLIB NO http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~jaffer/SLIB_COPYING.txt The text at the given URL is not really the license it self, more an explanatory text mentionning public domain dedication and the actual license. On a side note, they seem to define a theshold for copyrightability at "a dozen of lines" "PM: Reject (not a license, but rather an explanation of how SLIB is licensed on file by file basis) DC: Reject (agree with PM) "
|
| |
+ softSurfer License softSurfer NO https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/softSurfer
|
| |
+ SciTech MGL Public License STMPL NO https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/STMPL this is the same as MPL 1.0 except for the preamble and amendment at end, due to this and that no one has seen it used currently, did not add
|
| |
+ Trusted Computing Group License TCGL NO https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/TCGL
|
| |
+ Transitive Grace Period Public Licence TGPPL NO This is really OSL-3.0 with a few minor changes having to do with the name and then the modifications to the license (last section). I think this was submitted to SPDX and we pointed out they should just use the "original"? check this https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/TGPPL
|
| |
+ Threeparttable License Threeparttable NO https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Threeparttable
|
| |
+ Tolua License Tolua NO https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Tolua
|
| |
+ Time::ParseDate License TPDL NO https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/TPDL
|
| |
+ Thor Public License TPL NO https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/ThorPublicLicense As noted in Fedora's wiki, this is MPL-1.1 with an additionnal 0.1 section - this is the same as MPL 1.1 except for the added terms at the beginning, due to this and that no one has seen it used currently, did not add
|
| |
+ Text-Tabs+Wrap License TTWL NO https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/TTWL
|
| |
+ Tumbolia Public License Tumbolia NO very similar to FSFAP https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Tumbolia
|
| |
+ UCAR License UCAR NO used in one project - udunits2 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/UCAR
|
| |
+ Unicode Character Database Terms Of Use UCD NO https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/UCD this license appears to have been replaced as of 1991 see http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html#Exhibit1
|
| |
+ Vita Nuova Liberal Source License VNLSL NO Fedora link now has text preserved - doesn't seem to be in Fedora, confirm https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Vita_Nuova_Liberal_Source_License no current copy of license elsewhere and seems old and very specific so not adding
|
| |
+ Webmin License Webmin NO Fedora link now has text - need to do more research on this https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Webmin This is a BSD-3-Clause with an additional set of patent-related restrictions same as BSD; can't find the patent clause in current download and unclear from Fedora page if this is really "part" of the license
|
| |
+ Zope Public License v 1.0 ZPLv1.0 NO SPDX has v 1.1, 2.0 and 2.1 http://www.zope.org/Resources/ZPL There is no link to version 1.0 of the license on http://old.zope.org/Resources/License/ eventhough this version is mentioned. The link http://www.zope.org/Resources/ZPL now gives a 404ish "Die Seite existiert leider nicht…" fine to add if someone can find a version of the license text; it is listed here: http://old.zope.org/Resources/License/ (as well as other older licenses) but no active link) Reject (old licensethat has been replaced at least 3 times since 1.0 and can't find copy of old license)"
|
| |