Software licensing clarification

Bug #831051 reported by James Laska on 2011-08-22
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone

Bug Description

I am interested in packaging python-signalfd for use in Fedora. Part of the Fedora packaging guidelines requires that all software in Fedora must be under licenses in the Fedora licensing list [1]. The front page for python-signalfd references licenses MIT, X, and Expat License ... but does not reference a specific version. The Fedora packaging guidelines recommend the following course of action in this case ...

    In cases where the licensing is unclear, it may be necessary to contact the
    copyright holders to confirm the licensing of code or content. In those
    situations, it is _always_ preferred to ask upstream to resolve the licensing
    confusion by documenting the licensing and releasing an updated tarball.
    However, this is not always possible to achieve. In such cases, it is
    acceptable to receive confirmation of licensing via email. A copy of the email,
    containing full headers, must be included as a source file (marked as %doc) in
    the package. This file is considered part of the license text.

Additionally, the LICENSE file [2], included with the source, does not reference (or include) a specific free software license. The Fedora packaging guidelines recommend the following corrective measure in this case ...

    If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
    its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
    package must be included in %doc. If the source package does not include the
    text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them
    to correct this mistake.

This bug report is intended to track upstream communication and resolution on the above 2 licensing issues.



Jean-Paul Calderone (exarkun) wrote :

I don't understand the issue. The LICENSE file is included in the release tarball hosted on PyPI, and it includes a copy of the MIT license. What aspect of the license requires clarification?

James Laska (jal233) wrote :

Hi exarkun! Apologies, I'm not as familiar with the MIT license, and didn't recognize it at first. You are indeed correct, the included LICENSE file accurately represents the MIT software license and is acceptable for packaging in Fedora [1]. No upstream changes are needed at this time, this report can be closed.



Changed in python-signalfd:
status: New → Invalid
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers