On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 1:18 PM Mark Wielaard <mjw(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Hi,
valgrind as a whole is licensed under the GPLv2+, but has a couple of
development headers, all separately packaged in the valgrind-devel
subpackage) with a lax-permissive license. Since they are meant to
embed valgrind specific (code) annotations into other
programs/libraries they carry an explicit exception from the GPL.
There are 7 such files, all exactly the same, except for the embedded
file name, "This file is part of..." description and Copyright notice.
See below for the exact text and variants.
It would be nice to give this binary subpackage its own License tag.
But I have some trouble figuring out which (SPDX) tag to use.
The closest seems to be what SPDX calls "bzip2-1.0.6" (which kind of
makes sense since Julian Seward started both the bzip2 and valgrind
projects).
https://spdx.org/licenses/bzip2-1.0.6.html
I could use that identifier. But it seems to be an oddly specific
identifier, for an older version of bzip2. And the Fedora bzip2 package
just uses BSD-4-Clause. I could also use BSD-4-Clause since that is
more generic. But the text of what SPDX calls BSD-4-Clause doesn't
really match (so maybe the Fedora bzip2 package got that wrong?)
Sounds like it, but I'll try to look into that later.
What would be to best license tag to use here?
They all look as follows:
/* -*- c -*-
----------------------------------------------------------------
Notice that the following BSD-style license applies to this one
file (valgrind.h) only. The rest of Valgrind is licensed under the
terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2, unless
otherwise indicated. See the COPYING file in the source
distribution for details.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This file is part of Valgrind, a dynamic binary instrumentation
framework.
Copyright (C) 2000-2017 Julian Seward. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must
not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this
software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product
documentation would be appreciated but is not required.
3. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must
not be misrepresented as being the original software.
4. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this software without specific prior written
permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE
GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,
WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This seems indeed to match bzip2-1.06 -- Jilayne, I assume the full
text of what is wrapped in the <copyrightText> tag could be ignored
for purposes of matching? i.e.
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/src/bzip2-1.0.6.xml#L1...
The SPDX Matching Guidelines say: "To avoid a license mismatch merely
because the copyright notice (usually found above the actual license
or exception text) is different. The copyright notice is important
information to be recorded elsewhere in the SPDX document, but for the
purposes of matching a license to the SPDX License List, it should be
ignored because it is not part of the substantive license text."
but this does not define what a "copyright notice" is. If we don't
hear from Jilayne, I'd go ahead with assuming that this is a perfect
match. :)
- Richard
Notice that the above BSD-style license applies to this one file
(valgrind.h) only. The entire rest of Valgrind is licensed under
the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2. See the
COPYING file in the source distribution for details.
----------------------------------------------------------------
*/
They only differ in "this one file
([valgrind|cachegrind|callgrind|drd|helgrind|memcheck|dhat].h) only" at
the top and the bottom. And the description and Copyright notice.
This file is part of Cachegrind, a high-precision tracing profiler
built with Valgrind.
Copyright (C) 2023-2023 Nicholas Nethercote. All rights reserved.
--
This file is part of callgrind, a valgrind tool for cache simulation
and call tree tracing.
Copyright (C) 2003-2017 Josef Weidendorfer. All rights reserved.
--
This file is part of DRD, a Valgrind tool for verification of
multithreaded programs.
Copyright (C) 2006-2020 Bart Van Assche <bvanassche(a)acm.org>.
All rights reserved.
--
This file is part of Helgrind, a Valgrind tool for detecting errors
in threaded programs.
Copyright (C) 2007-2017 OpenWorks LLP
info(a)open-works.co.uk
--
This file is part of MemCheck, a heavyweight Valgrind tool for
detecting memory errors.
Copyright (C) 2000-2017 Julian Seward. All rights reserved.
--
This file is part of DHAT, a Valgrind tool for profiling the
heap usage of programs.
Copyright (C) 2020 Nicholas Nethercote. All rights reserved.
--
Thanks,
Mark
--
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue