Ah yes, the old - add some extra stuff to the standard LGPL or GPL
license header... which really doesn't seem to do anyone downstream any
favors, but I digress.
Note - the project does include a full copy of the standard LGPL in the
repo. This license notice seems to appear in another .txt file at the
top-level, but more notably (and more expected) as the license notice in
the actual source files, see:
https://github.com/mjsottile/sfsexp/blob/master/src/cstring.c
I think the operative question is: Could this additional stuff in the
license header be seen to modify the standard terms of LGPL-2.1
It's really just the first paragraph at issue as the rest of the license
header is the standard language LGPL recommends in "how to apply these
license terms"
Here are my thoughts below, by sentence. I'll be curious to hear if
Richard agrees!
On 6/12/22 4:38 PM, Ian McInerney wrote:
When verifying the license for sfsexp
(
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095717) in my review, I
noticed it appears to have a modification to the LGPLv2+ license on
it. The full license text provided by the package is:
Copyright (2003-2006). The Regents of the University of California.
usual copyright
notice - nothing unusual here
This
material was produced under U.S. Government contract W-7405-ENG-36 for Los
Alamos National Laboratory, which is operated by the University of
California for the U.S. Department of Energy.
This statement is informational,
nothing that could be considered a
license term here.
The U.S. Government has rights
to use, reproduce, and distribute this software.
This also seems like a simply
statement of fact/reality.
NEITHER THE GOVERNMENT NOR
THE UNIVERSITY MAKES ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OR ASSUMES ANY
LIABILITY FOR THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
Not sure why someone felt the need to add
this when it's covered in the
standard license notice, but more importantly, this more specific
version of disclaimer of warranty - that is, "express or implied" is
stated in the LGPL license, so I do not see this as adding anything
more/different.
If software is modified to produce
derivative works, such modified software should be clearly marked, so
as not
to confuse it with the version available from LANL.
LGPL section 2(b) states,
"You must cause the files modified to carry
prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any
change." which I'd consider functionally the same as "carry prominent
notices", so I also don't see this as adding anything more/different.
Additionally, this library is free software; you can redistribute it
and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version.
This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
WITHOUT
ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU Lesser General Public
License
for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation,
Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, U SA
LA-CC-04-094
(taken from
https://github.com/mjsottile/sfsexp/blob/master/COPYING).
This to me reads as a modification to the normal LGPL (since it puts
requirements that derivative works be clearly marked as distinct). Is
this modification acceptable for inclusion in Fedora?
Given I don't think anything in the "custom" license notice doesn't add,
takeaway or modify the standard terms of the LGPL-21., I'd just consider
this as LGPL-2.1-or-later.
That being said, such a determination requires some amount of legal
analysis. If I could, I'd highly discourage this kind of "custom"
license notice as it just creates more work downstream. Incidentally,
the kernel is seeing some files with this kind of thing. Sigh.
Jilayne
-Ian
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list --legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email tolegal-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.fedora...
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure