On 05/14/2010 09:01 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
I have recently been asked to look into packaging for eSCAPe:
Before I dig into packaging itself I would like to be sure it won't be
useless because of legal issues.
This package uses modified GPLv3 License. I attach licenses used for
library, editor and as part of headers of some source files.
Can we use these licenses for Fedora? There are certain parts that make
Please note that program consists of 2 parts:
Both are licensed under the same license, so even library uses GPLv3 and
This license hurts my brain.
It claims to be GPLv3, but it then goes on to list a standard BSD
license. Is it BSD or GPLv3? It doesn't necessarily matter from an
acceptability stance, but it would matter from a compatibility stance. I
think we need to get this clarified before I say this is okay.
Please ask upstream whether this code is supposed to be under GPLv3 or
BSD, and if it is supposed to be under GPLv3, have them remove the
following text (which is the BSD license):
<text to be removed>
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of ESCAPE source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the ESCAPE Software
3. Neither the name of G2, Inc. nor the names of any contributors may be
used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without
specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``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 G2, INC., THE AUTHORS OR CONTRIBUTORS 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.
</text to be removed>
Now, it is possible they want to dual license this code under GPLv3 or
BSD, but they're really not doing it right, if so. If this turns out to
be the case, I would be happy to offer them some advice (not legal
advice, because IANAL) on how to reword the licensing attribution to
make it clear.