On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 6:55 PM Christian Krause <chkr(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Hi,
I would like to ask for some help determining the correct licenses and SPDX tags for
"scummvm". Please see my three questions further down the mail.
I'm currently updating the scummvm package to a new upstream version (which
introduced a new license) and additionally I'm attempting to migrate the license tags
to SPDX.
- current license tag for scummvm-2.7.1
"License: GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+ and BSD and OFL and MIT and ISC"
- scummvm-2.8.0 lists now the following licenses in its source:
- main license file
https://github.com/scummvm/scummvm/blob/v2.8.0/COPYING
- additional licenses in
https://github.com/scummvm/scummvm/tree/v2.8.0/LICENSES/
- here is my attempt to map the old license tags to the license files and the new SPDX
tags:
GPLv3+:
- COPYING
- COPYING.FREEFONT
-> SPDX: GPL-3.0-or-later
COPYING.FREEFONT is GPL-3.0-or-later WITH Font-exception-2.0 (already
allowed in fedora-license-data)
LGPLv2+:
- COPYING.LGPL
-> SPDX: LGPL-2.0-or-later
This should be LGPL-2.1-or-later
BSD:
- COPYING.BSD
This file contains multiple licenses. Some are instances of
BSD-3-Clause. The others (the University of California one and the
Erik Corry one) appear to be a match to Cornell-Lossless-JPEG. You
have to submit an issue to get this added to fedora-license-data (IIRC
I was the one who submitted it to SPDX in anticipation of its being
needed for Fedora).
- COPYING.MKV
-> SPDX: BSD-3-Clause
MIT:
- COPYING.MIT
- COPYING.TINYGL
-> SPDX: MIT
ISC:
- COPYING.ISC
-> SPDX: ISC
OFL:
- COPYING.OFL
-> SPDX: OFL-1.1-RFN
COPYING.GLAD contains:
- an MIT license (although "Software" is substituted with
"materials")
- an Apache 2.0 license
- another MIT license
-> SPDX: MIT AND Apache-2.0
The Khronos license uses "the Materials" instead of "the Software".
There was a recent issue in
github.com/spdx/license-list-XML about
this, I forget where SPDX ended up on this (whether to revise `MIT` or
to create a new identifier), check the SPDX issues or wait for Jilayne
to chime in. :)
COPYING.LUA
- not the standard MIT license
- however, LUA homepage (
https://www.lua.org/license.html) explicitly states that old lua
versions can be used under MIT
-> SPDX: MIT
IMO this is incorrect, you should either submit a fedora-license-data
issue for the Lua license (which does not seem to have been considered
by Fedora or SPDX before) or get the scummvm project to change the
license notices for the Lua code from the legacy Lua license to the
MIT license.
QUESTION 1: Are my findings so far correct?
See above.
QUESTION 2: As far as I understand, there is no need to do any
"effective license" analysis, so can I just use these tags concatenated with
AND?
If that accurately reflects how these licenses are actually used in
the package, yes.
new in scummvm-2.8.0: CatharonLicense.txt
- seems to be previously used for the auto-hinter in FreeType
- it looks like it is considered compatible to the FreeType license:
-
http://www.fifi.org/doc/libfreetype6/ft2faq.html#autohint-license
- additional information:
-
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Freetype#tab=Details
-
https://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/f/freetype/freetype_2....
- it is not listed in
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/
- the FreeType license is listed as allowed license
QUESTION 3: How to proceed with that license?
Please open an issue at fedora-license-data for review of the license.
Richard