Recently I've downloaded the primary.xml for F28 and ran a check comparing the licences of packages in the repo against good licences listed on the Licensing wiki page.
There are a couple licences that are used by a few packages, but I couldn't find them on the wiki page. It might be good to review these licences and add them to the wiki page, or ask maintainers to change the package License: tags in case the licence is already listed, but under a different identifier.
- Array (used by gcin)
- BSL-1.0 (used by ceph, librados2 and others)
- Freely redistributable without restriction (used by alienarena-data, beneath-a-steel-sky and others)
- PDDL-1.0 (used by python-nibabel)
There's also some packages with typos in their licence strings; I've submitted bug reports for those packages.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
As part of Fedora’s commitment to addressing the EU General Data
Privacy Regulation (GDPR), among other reasons, the Fedora privacy
statement has been revised. The new statement has been reviewed with
Fedora Legal and approved by the Fedora Council.
You should read the statement fully, but the key updates include:
* Clearer descriptions of how Fedora uses your personal data to
* Information about the GDPR;
* Additional detail on how your personal data may be shared to serve
the public interest and that of the open source community; and
* More focus on how you can review, modify, and update your personal
You can find the new statement at the standard wiki location:
Many of Fedora’s applications have been updated to include links to
clear, please let us know by filing a new issue in the Fedora
infrastructure ticket queue: <https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure>
The new privacy statement takes effect on Friday, May 25, 2018. By
using Fedora services on or after that date, you are agreeing to these
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I just ran into some software developed at the US National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) that might be suitable for inclusion in
Fedora by itself or as part of some other package.
The license NIST uses is :
This software was developed by employees of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the Federal Government and
is being made available as a public service. Pursuant to title 17 United
States Code Section 105, works of NIST employees are not subject to
copyright protection in the United States. This software may be subject
to foreign copyright. Permission in the United States and in foreign
countries, to the extent that NIST may hold copyright, to use, copy,
modify, create derivative works, and distribute this software and its
documentation without fee is hereby granted on a non-exclusive basis,
provided that this notice and disclaimer of warranty appears in all copies.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED 'AS IS' WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EITHER EXPRESSED, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
ANY WARRANTY THAT THE SOFTWARE WILL CONFORM TO SPECIFICATIONS, ANY
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE,
AND FREEDOM FROM INFRINGEMENT, AND ANY WARRANTY THAT THE DOCUMENTATION
WILL CONFORM TO THE SOFTWARE, OR ANY WARRANTY THAT THE SOFTWARE WILL BE
ERROR FREE. IN NO EVENT SHALL NIST BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ARISING OUT OF, RESULTING FROM, OR IN ANY WAY
CONNECTED WITH THIS SOFTWARE, WHETHER OR NOT BASED UPON WARRANTY,
CONTRACT, TORT, OR OTHERWISE, WHETHER OR NOT INJURY WAS SUSTAINED BY
PERSONS OR PROPERTY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER OR NOT LOSS WAS SUSTAINED
FROM, OR AROSE OUT OF THE RESULTS OF, OR USE OF, THE SOFTWARE OR
SERVICES PROVIDED HEREUNDER.
Is this a) free, b) GPL compatible?
Fedora Project Contributor
I stumbled across a piece of code under the "Don't Be a Dick Public
License", which has a convenient web site: http://www.dbad-license.org/
Yeah, it's another "semi-joke" license. Supposed to be funny, but
confusing and contradictory.
The license text is as follows:
# DON'T BE A DICK PUBLIC LICENSE
> Version 1.1, December 2016
> Copyright (C) [year] [fullname]
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document.
> DON'T BE A DICK PUBLIC LICENSE
> TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
1. Do whatever you like with the original work, just don't be a dick.
Being a dick includes - but is not limited to - the following
1a. Outright copyright infringement - Don't just copy this and change
1b. Selling the unmodified original with no work done what-so-ever,
that's REALLY being a dick.
1c. Modifying the original work to contain hidden harmful content. That
would make you a PROPER dick.
2. If you become rich through modifications, related works/services, or
supporting the original work, share the love. Only a dick would make
loads off this work and not buy the original work's creator(s) a
3. Code is provided with no warranty. Using somebody else's code and
bitching when it goes wrong makes you a DONKEY dick. Fix the problem
yourself. A non-dick would submit the fix back.
I can't tell if this is non-free or not. Certainly the restrictions on
sales of unmodified work and the restriction on certain types of
modifications would be problematic, but then I can't tell if the "just
don't be a dick" part is a request or a requirement (which then
contradicts the "do whatever you like" portion).
So, is this another one for the "Bad Licenses" section?