| Summary: | net-misc/iputils: incomplete LICENSE | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Justin Bronder (RETIRED) <jsbronder> |
| Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Gentoo's Team for Core System packages <base-system> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | david, licenses |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Justin Bronder (RETIRED)
2009-03-24 14:31:52 UTC
(In reply to comment #0) > rdisc is under a Sun license, very similar to sun-rpc (used by the rpcbind > ebuild). Not very similar, in fact. The sun-rpc license bars non-developers (e.g., mirror admins) from distributing the software: "Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or program developed by the user or with the express written consent of Sun Microsystems, Inc." Whereas for rdisc it is instead: > * Users may copy or modify Rdisc without charge, and they may freely > * distribute it. @Licenses team, what do you think? Is this a free software license? I'm somewhat unsure about this clause: > * [...] provided that this legend is included on > * all tape media Hopyfully the term "all tape media" can be taken literally and doesn't apply to other physical media (that didn't exist at the time when the license was written). Otherwise we would have to put a sticker on all physical media. iputils is on the minimal install CD, for example. Check https://github.com/iputils/iputils/blob/master/LICENSE As actual maintainer of iputils, I'd like to say - don't worry. For majority of users (99.99% ? ), this is just unneeded information. (In reply to David Heidelberg (okias) from comment #2) > Check https://github.com/iputils/iputils/blob/master/LICENSE > > As actual maintainer of iputils, I'd like to say - don't worry. > > For majority of users (99.99% ? ), this is just unneeded information. That may well be the case, nevertheless our LICENSE information should be accurate. I have committed rdisc as a new license file and added it to the MISC-FREE license group. Furthermore, the BSD-4 licensed files in the package all have a "University of California, Berkeley" copyright, therefore the waiver for the advertising clause applies to them (effectively making them licensed under 3-clause BSD): ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change For the time being, I have updated LICENSE to "BSD GPL-2+ rdisc" in all ebuilds. I have also noticed that files clockdiff.c and ping_common.c don't have any license header. This would mean that the tarball cannot be distributed at all. Leaving this bug open because this is a issue that still needs to be sorted out. (In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #3) > (In reply to David Heidelberg (okias) from comment #2) > > Check https://github.com/iputils/iputils/blob/master/LICENSE > > > > As actual maintainer of iputils, I'd like to say - don't worry. > > > > For majority of users (99.99% ? ), this is just unneeded information. > > That may well be the case, nevertheless our LICENSE information should be > accurate. > > I have committed rdisc as a new license file and added it to the MISC-FREE > license group. Furthermore, the BSD-4 licensed files in the package all have > a "University of California, Berkeley" copyright, therefore the waiver for > the advertising clause applies to them (effectively making them licensed > under 3-clause BSD): > ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change Thank you, FIXED by: https://github.com/iputils/iputils/commit/f69eeac80de413248fd3d7d4d4244af22a81e055 > > For the time being, I have updated LICENSE to "BSD GPL-2+ rdisc" in all > ebuilds. > > I have also noticed that files clockdiff.c and ping_common.c don't have any > license header. This would mean that the tarball cannot be distributed at > all. Leaving this bug open because this is a issue that still needs to be > sorted out. FIXED by: https://github.com/iputils/iputils/commit/665782e1d3c77df2c90f144b586da1ac2da58302 Does seems to you that everything is correct at this moment? (In reply to David Heidelberg (okias) from comment #4) > Does seems to you that everything is correct at this moment? Yes, I believe this settles the issue. Thank you. Closing. |