(Add GPLv1 only.) |
(add Public Use License to docs section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Author:''' [[TomCallaway| Tom 'spot' Callaway]] (based on many other documents, correspondence with the FSF)<BR> | '''Author:''' [[TomCallaway| Tom 'spot' Callaway]] (based on many other documents, correspondence with the FSF)<BR> | ||
'''Revision:''' 0. | '''Revision:''' 0.88<BR> | ||
'''Initial Draft:''' Wednesday May 30, 2007<BR> | '''Initial Draft:''' Wednesday May 30, 2007<BR> | ||
'''Last Revised:''' Wednesday May 28, 2008<BR> | '''Last Revised:''' Wednesday May 28, 2008<BR> | ||
| Line 560: | Line 560: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Open Publication License, v1.0 ||Open Publication||Yes, provided the copyright holder does not exercise any of the “LICENSE OPTIONS” listed in Section VI||http://opencontent.org/openpub/ | |Open Publication License, v1.0 ||Open Publication||Yes, provided the copyright holder does not exercise any of the “LICENSE OPTIONS” listed in Section VI||http://opencontent.org/openpub/ | ||
|- | |||
|Public Use License, v1.0 ||Public Use || Yes ||http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/PublicUseLicense | |||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 21:52, 28 May 2008
Author: Tom 'spot' Callaway (based on many other documents, correspondence with the FSF)
Revision: 0.88
Initial Draft: Wednesday May 30, 2007
Last Revised: Wednesday May 28, 2008
Overview
The goal of the Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to create a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from Free and Open Source software.
All software in Fedora must be under licenses in the Fedora licensing list . This list is based on the licenses approved by the Free Software Foundation , OSI and consultation with Red Hat Legal.
If code is multiple licensed, and at least one of the licenses is approved for Fedora, that code can be included in Fedora under the approved license(s) (but only under the terms of the approved license(s)).
Package Licensing Guidelines
Fedora has a separate set of Licensing Guidelines which describe, in detail, how to note the license of a package in the RPM Spec file.
Discussion of Licensing
Discussion of Licensing in Fedora (along with any other Fedora legal items which are not considered confidential) takes place on the fedora-legal-list mailing list. The list is open to any interested subscribers, but is moderated such that only subscribers may directly post.
You can subscribe to the mailing list and view the archives here: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Keep in mind that the fedora-legal-list is not the place to send any correspondence of a confidential nature, nor is it a source for legal advice. You should not assume that any member of the fedora-legal-list is a lawyer.
License Changes
A license change in a package is a very serious event - it has as many, if not more, implications for related packages as ABI changes do.
Therefore, if your package changes license, even if it just changes the license version, it is required that you announce it on fedora-devel-list.
Note that any license change to a more restrictive license or license version may affect the legality of portions of Fedora as a whole; ergo, FESCo reserves the right to block upgrades of packages to versions with new licenses to ensure the legal distribution of Fedora.
Please contact FESCo if you have any questions.
License of Fedora SPEC Files
All original Fedora contributions are governed by the Fedora contributor license agreement (CLA) . This allows all recipients to have:
"A perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute this Contribution and such derivative works"
Since every Fedora SPEC file is contributed by CLA signers, every Fedora SPEC is available under these license terms (unless otherwise explicitly licensed).
More information is available in the Fedora CLA .
Software Types
There are some specific software types worth mentioning from a licensing/legal perspective.
Shareware applications are not Open Source code, and are not acceptable for Fedora.
However, it is worth noting that some non-executable content exists that is required to make Open Source applications functional. An example of this would be open sourced game engines, such as Doom, Heretic, and Descent. These game engines come with freely distributable shareware gamedata files.
In this case, the gamedata files can be packaged and included in Fedora, as long as the files meet the requirements for binary firmware .
Patented Software
If a package contains code covered by known patents, then you should seek a written patent grant (and include that grant inside the package) before submitting it for Fedora. This is especially important for GPL/LGPL licensed packages, because of the following clause (from GPLv2):
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
It isn't safe to assume that the patent holder permits royalty-free redistribution, you need to get it in writing.
Emulators
Some emulators (applications which emulate another platform) are not permitted for inclusion in Fedora. These rules will help you determine if an emulator is acceptable for Fedora.
- Emulators which depend on firmware or ROM files to function may not be included in Fedora, unless the copyright holder(s) for the firmware/ROM files give clear permission for the firmware/ROM files to be distributed (either under a Fedora permissible license or under the Fedora firmware exception criteria). Note: This only covers the situation where an emulator will not run at all without firmware/ROM files. For example, emulators that compile and run, but ship with no game ROMs are not covered by this rule.
- Emulators must not ship with any ROM files (e.g. games) unless those ROM files are available under a Fedora permissible license and have been built from source code in the Fedora buildsystem.
- Emulators must not point to any third-party sites which provide firmware or ROM files that are distributed without the clear and explicit permission of their copyright holders.
- All other Fedora licensing and packaging rules apply to emulators.
QEMU ROMs
Whenever possible, ROMS implementing BIOS or Firmware for QEMU system targets must be built from source on the intended architecture. However, in many situations, this is not practical or possible. As a special exception for those situations where it is not practical or possible, prebuilt binary ROMS implementing BIOS or Firmware for QEMU system targets may be included in Fedora Packages, as long as the corresponding source code is also included in the Source RPM package.
Binary Firmware
Some applications, drivers, and hardware require binary-only firmware to boot Fedora or function properly. Fedora permits inclusion of these files as long as they meet the following requirements:
Requirements:
- The files are non-executable within the Fedora OS context (note: this means that the files cannot run on their own, not that they are just chmod -x)
- The files are not libraries, within the Fedora OS context.
- The files are standalone, not embedded in executable or library code (within the Fedora OS context).
- The files must be necessary for the functionality of open source code being included in Fedora OR to enable Fedora to boot on a specific device, where no other reliable and supported mechanisms exist.
- The files are available under an acceptable firmware license, which is included with the files in the packaging.
The Fedora Project considers a firmware license acceptable if:
- it allows some form of royalty-free use, subject to restrictions that the Fedora Project has determined are acceptable for firmware licenses (see below), and
- it does not restrict redistribution in ways that would make a software license unacceptable under Fedora licensing guidelines, except by:
- requiring that the firmware be redistributed only as incorporated in the redistributor's product (or as a maintenance update for existing end users of the redistributor's product), possibly limited further to those products of the redistributor that support or contain the hardware associated with the licensed firmware; and
- requiring the redistributor to pass on or impose conditions on users that are no more restrictive than those authorized by this Fedora firmware licensing policy.
A non-exhaustive list of restrictions on use that Fedora considers acceptable for firmware licenses are:
- any restrictions that are found in software licenses that are acceptable for Fedora;
- prohibitions on modification;
- prohibitions on reverse engineering, disassembly or decompilation;
- restricting use to use in conjunction with the hardware associated with the firmware license.
If you are unsure whether or not your files meet these requirements, ask on fedora-devel-list, and we will examine them for you.
The License tag for any firmware that disallows modification must be set to: "Redistributable, no modification permitted"
Firmware packages must be named <foo>-firmware, where <foo> is the driver or other hardware component that the firmware is for. In cases of firmware used to boot Fedora on a device, <foo> must be the type of device(s) that the firmware is intended for (e.g. raspberrypi).
Frequently Asked Questions
Fedora has a Licensing FAQ page, with frequently asked questions related to licensing (and answers!).
Software License List
These lists are not intended to be all inclusive, there are surely other licenses out there which are not categorized here. However, if a license of relevance to you is not listed here, please email the details to fedora-legal-list@redhat.com (note that this list is moderated, only members may directly post).
Good Licenses
Here is a list of Software Licenses that are OK for Fedora. If your license is not in this list, and you'd like to know if it is appropriate for Fedora, please email the details to fedora-legal-list@redhat.com (note that this list is moderated, only members may directly post).
| Full Name | Short Name | FSF Free? | GPLv2 Compat? | GPLv3 Compat? | Upstream URL |
| 3dfx Glide License | Glide | Yes | NO | NO | http://www.users.on.net/~triforce/glidexp/COPYING.txt |
| Academic Free License | AFL | Yes | NO | http://opensource.org/licenses/afl-3.0.php | |
| Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences BSD | AMPAS BSD | Yes | NO | NO | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#AMPASBSD |
| Adobe Systems Incorporated Source Code License Agreement | Adobe | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/AdobeLicense |
| Affero General Public License 1.0 | AGPLv1 | Yes | NO | http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html | |
| Affero General Public License 3.0 | AGPLv3 | Yes | NO | Sortof | http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html |
| Amazon Digital Services License | ADSL | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/AmazonDigitalServicesLicense |
| Apache Software License 1.0 | ASL 1.0 | Yes | NO | NO | http://www.apache.org/LICENSE-1.0 |
| Apache Software License 1.1 | ASL 1.1 | Yes | NO | NO | http://www.apache.org/LICENSE-1.1 |
| Apache Software License 2.0 | ASL 2.0 | Yes | NO | Yes | http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 |
| Apple Public Source License 2.0 | APSL 2.0 | Yes | NO | http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt | |
| Artistic (clarified) | Artistic clarified | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://www.statistica.unimib.it/utenti/dellavedova/software/artistic2.html |
| Artistic 2.0 | Artistic 2.0 | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0 |
| Aspell-ru License | ARL | Yes | NO | NO | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/AspellRu |
| BitTorrent License | BitTorrent | Yes | NO | NO | http://www.bittorrent.com/bittorrent-open-source-license |
| Boost Software License | Boost | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt |
| BSD License (original) | BSD with advertising | Yes | NO | NO | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#BSDwithAdvertising |
| BSD License (no advertising) | BSD | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#3ClauseBSD |
| BSD License (two clause) | BSD | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD |
| CeCILL License v2 | CeCILL | Yes | Yes | http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html | |
| CMU License (BSD like) | MIT | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT |
| Common Development Distribution License | CDDL | Yes | NO | http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt | |
| Common Public License | CPL | Yes | NO | http://www.eclipse.org/legal/cpl-v10.html | |
| Condor Public License | Condor | Yes | NO | http://www.cs.wisc.edu/condor/condor-public-license.html | |
| Copyright Attribution Only | Copyright only | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CopyrightOnly |
| CPAL License 1.0 | CPAL | Yes | NO | NO | https://www.socialtext.net/open/index.cgi?cpal_license_in_wikitext |
| Cryptix General License | Cryptix | Yes | NO | http://www.cryptix.org/LICENSE.TXT | |
| Crystal Stacker License | Crystal Stacker | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CrystalStacker |
| Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License | WTFPL | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/WTFPL |
| DOC License | DOC | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE-copying.html |
| Eclipse Public License 1.0 | EPL | Yes | NO | http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html | |
| eCos License v2.0 | eCos | Yes | Yes | http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ecos-license.html | |
| enna License | MIT | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#enna |
| Eiffel Forum License 2.0 | EFL 2.0 | Yes | Yes | http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/eiffel-forum-license-2.html | |
| Enlightenment License (e16) | MIT with advertising | Yes | NO | NO | http://www.enlightenment.org/viewvc/e16/e/COPYING?revision=1.10 |
| EU Datagrid Software License | EU Datagrid | Yes | Yes | http://www.opensource.org/licenses/eudatagrid.php | |
| Fedora Directory Server License | GPLv2 with exceptions | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://directory.fedoraproject.org/wiki/GPL_Exception_License_Text |
| Fair License | Fair | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://opensource.org/licenses/fair.php |
| feh License | MIT | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#feh |
| FLTK License | LGPLv2 with exceptions | Yes | Yes | http://www.fltk.org/COPYING.php | |
| FreeImage Public License | MPLv1.0 | Yes | NO | http://freeimage.sourceforge.net/freeimage-license.txt | |
| Freetype License | FTL | Yes | NO | Yes | http://freetype.fis.uniroma2.it/FTL.TXT |
| Giftware License | Giftware | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://www.talula.demon.co.uk/allegro/license.html |
| GNU General Public License (no version) | GPL+ | Yes | Yes | A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file they include. | |
| GNU General Public License v1.0 only | GPLv1 | Yes | ? | ? | http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.txt |
| GNU General Public License v1.0 or later | GPL+ | Yes | ? | ? | Note that this is not GPLv1+, because 1+ is the same as any version. |
| GNU General Public License v2.0 only | GPLv2 | Yes | See Matrix | See Matrix | http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html |
| GNU General Public License v2.0 only, with font embedding exception | GPLv2 with exceptions | Yes | See Matrix | See Matrix | http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException |
| GNU General Public License v2.0 or later | GPLv2+ | Yes | N/A | See Matrix | http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html |
| GNU General Public License v2.0 or later, with font embedding exception | GPLv2+ with exceptions | Yes | N/A | See Matrix | http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException |
| GNU General Public License v3.0 only | GPLv3 | Yes | See Matrix | N/A | http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html |
| GNU General Public License v3.0 only, with font embedding exception | GPLv3 with exceptions | Yes | See Matrix | N/A | http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException |
| GNU General Public License v3.0 or later | GPLv3+ | Yes | See Matrix | N/A | http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html |
| GNU General Public License v3.0 or later, with font embedding exception | GPLv3+ with exceptions | Yes | See Matrix | N/A | http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException |
| GNU Lesser General Public License (no version) | LGPLv2+ | Yes | Yes | A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file they include. Note that this is LGPLv2+, not LGPL+, because version 2 was the first version of LGPL. | |
| GNU Lesser General Public License v2 (or 2.1) only | LGPLv2 | Yes | See Matrix | See Matrix | http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html |
| GNU Lesser General Public License v2 (or 2.1), with exceptions | LGPLv2 with exceptions | Yes | See Matrix | See Matrix | Please be sure that any exceptions are approved by emailing them to fedora-legal-list@redhat.com first. |
| GNU Lesser General Public License v2 (or 2.1) or later | LGPLv2+ | Yes | See Matrix | See Matrix | http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html |
| GNU Lesser General Public License v2 (or 2.1) or later, with exceptions | LGPLv2+ with exceptions | Yes | See Matrix | See Matrix | Please be sure that any exceptions are approved by emailing them to fedora-legal-list@redhat.com first. |
| GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 only | LGPLv3 | Yes | See Matrix | See Matrix | http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl.html |
| GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 only, with exceptions | LGPLv3 with exceptions | Yes | See Matrix | See Matrix | Please be sure that any exceptions are approved by emailing them to fedora-legal-list@redhat.com first. |
| GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later | LGPLv3+ | Yes | See Matrix | See Matrix | http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl.html |
| GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later, with exceptions | LGPLv3+ with exceptions | Yes | See Matrix | See Matrix | Please be sure that any exceptions are approved by emailing them to fedora-legal-list@redhat.com first. |
| gnuplot License | gnuplot | Yes | NO | NO | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Gnuplot |
| IBM Public License | IBM | Yes | NO | http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ibmpl.php | |
| iMatix Standard Function Library Agreement | iMatix | Yes | Yes | http://legacy.imatix.com/html/sfl/sfl4.htm#license | |
| ImageMagick License | ImageMagick | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://www.imagemagick.org/script/license.php |
| Imlib2 License | Imlib2 | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Imlib2 |
| Independent JPEG Group License | IJG | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/IJG |
| Intel ACPI Software License Agreement | Intel ACPI | Yes | Yes | http://www.intel.com/technology/iapc/acpi/license2.htm | |
| Interbase Public License | Interbase | Yes | NO | http://www.borland.com/devsupport/interbase/opensource/IPL.html | |
| ISC License (Bind, DHCP Server) | ISC | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/sw/dhcp/dhcp-copyright.php |
| Jabber Open Source License | Jabber | Yes | NO | http://opensource.org/licenses/jabberpl.php | |
| JasPer License | JasPer | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~mdadams/jasper/LICENSE |
| LaTeX Project Public License | LPPL | Yes | NO | http://www.latex-project.org/lppl/lppl-1-3a.txt | |
| Lawrence Berkeley National Labs BSD variant license | LBNL BSD | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/LBNLBSD |
| libtiff License | libtiff | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/libtiff |
| Lucent Public License (Plan9) | LPL | Yes | NO | http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html | |
| mecab-ipadic license | mecab-ipadic | Yes | ? | http://www.icot.or.jp/ARCHIVE/terms-and-conditions-for-IFS-J.html | |
| MIT license (also X11) | MIT | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT |
| Mozilla Public License v1.0 | MPLv1.0 | Yes | NO | http://opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.0.php | |
| Mozilla Public License v1.1 | MPLv1.1 | Yes | Compatible if dual licensed with GPL, otherwise Incompatible | http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html | |
| mpich2 License | MIT | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT |
| MySQL License | GPLv2 with exceptions | Yes | ? | http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html | |
| Naumen Public License | Naumen | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://opensource.org/licenses/naumen.php |
| NCSA/University of Illinois Open Source License | NCSA | Yes | Yes | http://www.otm.uiuc.edu/faculty/forms/opensource.asp | |
| Neotonic Clearsilver License | ASL 1.1 | Yes | NO | NO | http://www.clearsilver.net/license.hdf |
| NetCDF license | NetCDF | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/copyright.html |
| Nethack General Public License | NGPL | Yes | NO | http://opensource.org/licenses/nethack.php | |
| Netizen Open Source License | NOSL | Yes | NO | http://bits.netizen.com.au/licenses/NOSL/nosl.txt | |
| Netscape Public License | Netscape | Yes | NO | http://www.mozilla.org/NPL/NPL-1.0.html | |
| Nokia Open Source License | Nokia | Yes | NO | http://opensource.org/licenses/nokia.html | |
| NRL License | BSD with advertising | Yes | NO | http://web.mit.edu/network/isakmp/nrllicense.html | |
| OpenLDAP License | OpenLDAP | Yes | Yes | http://www.openldap.org/software/release/license.html | |
| OpenPBS License | OpenPBS | Yes | NO | NO | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/OpenPBS |
| Open Software License 1.0 | OSL 1.0 | Yes | NO | NO | http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-1.0.txt |
| Open Software License 1.1 | OSL 1.1 | Yes | NO | NO | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/OSL1.1 |
| Open Software License 2.0 | OSL 2.0 | Yes | NO | NO | http://www.nexb.com/license/LICENSE-OSL-2.0.html |
| Open Software License 3.0 | OSL 3.0 | Yes | NO | NO | http://opensource.org/licenses/osl-3.0.php |
| OpenSSL License | OpenSSL | Yes | NO | http://www.sdisw.com/openssl.htm | |
| OReilly License | OReilly | Yes | NO | NO | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/OReilly |
| Perl License | GPL+ or Artistic | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://dev.perl.org/licenses/ |
| Perl License (variant) | GPLv2+ or Artistic | Yes | Yes | Yes | Some perl packages explicitly state GPLv2+, only use this license for those cases |
| Phorum License | Phorum | Yes | NO | http://phorum.org/license.txt | |
| PHP License v3.0 | PHP | Yes | NO | http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt | |
| Public Domain | Public Domain | Yes | Yes | Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. | |
| Python License | Python | Yes | Yes | http://www.python.org/2.0.1/license.html | |
| Qhull License | Qhull | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Qhull |
| Q Public License | QPL | Yes | NO | http://doc.trolltech.com/4.0/qpl.html | |
| RealNetworks Public Source License V1.0 | RPSL | Yes | NO | http://www.opensource.org/licenses/real.php | |
| Rice BSD | RiceBSD | Yes | NO | NO | http://www.caam.rice.edu/software/ARPACK/RiceBSD.doc |
| Ruby License | Ruby | Yes | Compatible if dual licensed with GPL, otherwise Incompatible | http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt | |
| Sendmail License | Sendmail | Yes | Compatible if Eric Allman, Sendmail Inc. or the University of California is the copyright holder | Compatible if Eric Allman, Sendmail Inc. or the University of California is the copyright holder | http://www.sendmail.org/ftp/LICENSE |
| Sleepycat Software Product License | Sleepycat | Yes | Yes | http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/Sleepycat.html | |
| SLIB License | SLIB | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~jaffer/SLIB_COPYING.txt |
| Standard ML of New Jersey License | MIT | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT | |
| Sun Industry Standards Source License | SISSL | Yes | NO | http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html | |
| Sun Public License | SPL | Yes | NO | http://www.netbeans.org/about/legal/spl.html | |
| TCL/TK License | TCL | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/TCL |
| Unicode Character Database Terms Of Use | UCD | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/UCD |
| Vim License | Vim | Yes | Yes | http://www.vim.org/htmldoc/uganda.html | |
| Vita Nuova Liberal Source License | VNLSL | Yes | NO | http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/liblicence.txt | |
| VOSTROM Public License for Open Source | VOSTROM | Yes | NO | NO | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/VOSTROM |
| Vovida Software License v. 1.0 | VSL | Yes | NO | http://opensource.org/licenses/vovidapl.php | |
| W3C Software Notice and License | W3C | Yes | Yes | http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231 | |
| wxWidgets Library License | wxWidgets | Yes | Yes | http://www.wxwidgets.org/manuals/stable/wx_wxlicense.html | |
| xinetd License | xinetd | Yes | NO | http://www.xinetd.org/license | |
| Xerox License | Xerox | Yes | NO | NO | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Xerox |
| Zend License v2.0 | Zend | Yes | NO | http://www.zend.com/license/2_00.txt | |
| Zope Public License v 1.0 | ZPLv1.0 | Yes | NO | NO | http://www.zope.org/Resources/ZPL |
| Zope Public License v 2.0 | ZPLv2.0 | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://www.zope.org/Resources/ZPL |
| Zope Public License v 2.1 | ZPLv2.1 | Yes | Yes | Yes | http://www.zope.org/Resources/ZPL |
| zlib/libpng License | zlib | Yes | Yes | http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html | |
| zlib/libpng License with Acknowledgement | zlib with acknowledgement | Yes | NO | NO | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/ZlibWithAcknowledgement |
Bad Licenses
These are software licenses which are NOT OKAY for Fedora. Nothing in Fedora should be using these licenses. They're either non-free or deprecated.
Unknown Licenses
These are licenses for which the Fedora acceptability is unknown/undecided. If one of your packages uses one of these licenses, please let us know by emailing fedora-legal-list@redhat.com (note that this list is moderated, only members may directly post).
Note: Some of these licenses may be pending review from the FSF.
| Full Name | FSF Free? | GPLv2 Compatible? | Upstream URL |
| Attribution Assurance License | ? | ? | http://opensource.org/licenses/attribution.php |
| Computer Associates Trusted Open Source License 1.1 | ? | ? | http://opensource.org/licenses/ca-tosl1.1.php |
| CUA Office Public License Version 1.0 | ? | ? | http://opensource.org/licenses/cuaoffice.php |
| Educational Community License | ? | ? | http://opensource.org/licenses/ecl1.php |
| Entessa Public License | ? | ? | http://opensource.org/licenses/entessa.php |
| Frameworx License | ? | ? | http://opensource.org/licenses/frameworx.php |
| Motosoto License | ? | ? | http://opensource.org/licenses/motosoto.php |
| OCLC Public Research License 2.0 | ? | ? | http://opensource.org/licenses/oclc2.php |
| Open Group Test Suite License | ? | ? | http://opensource.org/licenses/opengroup.php |
| Ricoh Source Code Public License | ? | ? | http://opensource.org/licenses/ricohpl.php |
| RSA license terms in perl Digest/MD5.pm | ? | ? | http://public.activestate.com/cgi-bin/perlbrowse/b/ext/Digest/MD5/MD5.pm |
GPL Compatibility Matrix
OK. Hold on tight. Think of this as a horrible legal version of "Does it Blend?".
(contents copied from http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility)
| I want to release a project under: | |||||||
| GPLv2 only | GPLv2 or later | GPLv3 or later | LGPLv2.1 only | LGPLv2.1 or later | LGPLv3 or later | ||
| GPLv2 only | OK | OK 2 | NO | OK if you convert to GPLv2 7 | OK if you convert to GPLv2 7 2 | NO | |
| GPLv2 or later | OK 1 | OK | OK | OK if you convert to GPL 7 | OK if you convert to GPL 7 | OK if you convert to GPLv3 8 | |
| I want to copy code under: | GPLv3 | NO | OK if you upgrade to GPLv3 3 | OK | OK if you convert to GPLv3 7 | OK if you convert to GPLv3 7 3 | OK if you convert to GPLv3 8 |
| LGPLv2.1 only | OK if you convert to GPLv2 7 | OK if you convert to GPL 7 2 | OK if you convert to GPLv3 7 | OK | OK 6 | OK if you convert to GPLv3 7 8 | |
| LGPLv2.1 or later | OK if you convert to GPLv2 7 1 | OK if you convert to GPL 7 | OK if you convert to GPLv3 7 | OK 5 | OK | OK | |
| LGPLv3 | NO | OK if you upgrade and convert to GPLv3 8 3 | OK if you convert to GPLv3 8 | OK if you convert to GPLv3 8 | OK if you upgrade to LGPLv3 4 | OK |
| I want to release a project under: | |||||||
| GPLv2 only | GPLv2 or later | GPLv3 or later | LGPLv2.1 only | LGPLv2.1 or later | LGPLv3 or later | ||
| GPLv2 only | OK | OK 2 | NO | OK if you convert to GPLv2 7 | OK if you convert to GPLv2 7 2 | NO | |
| GPLv2 or later | OK 1 | OK | OK | OK if you convert to GPL 7 1 | OK if you convert to GPL 7 | OK if you convert to GPLv3 8 | |
| I want to use (link to) a library under: | GPLv3 | NO | OK if you upgrade to GPLv3 3 | OK | OK if you convert to GPLv3 7 | OK if you convert to GPLv3 7 3 | OK if you convert to GPLv3 8 |
| LGPLv2.1 only | OK | OK | OK | OK | OK | OK | |
| LGPLv2.1 or later | OK | OK | OK | OK | OK | OK | |
| LGPLv3 | NO | OK | OK | OK | OK | OK |
Footnotes:
1: You must follow the terms of GPLv2 when incorporating the code in this case. You cannot take advantage of terms in later versions of the GPL.
2: If you do this, as long as the project contains the code released under GPLv2 only, you will not be able to upgrade the project's license to GPLv3 or later.
3: If you have the ability to release the project under GPLv2 or any later version, you can choose to release it under GPLv3 or any later version—and once you do that, you'll be able to incorporate the code released under GPLv3.
4: If you have the ability to release the project under LGPLv2.1 or any later version, you can choose to release it under LGPLv3 or any later version—and once you do that, you'll be able to incorporate the code released under LGPLv3.
5: You must follow the terms of LGPLv2.1 when incorporating the code in this case. You cannot take advantage of terms in later versions of the LGPL.
6: If you do this, as long as the project contains the code released under LGPLv2.1 only, you will not be able to upgrade the project's license to LGPLv3 or later.
7: LGPLv2.1 gives you permission to relicense the code under any version of the GPL since GPLv2. If you can switch the LGPLed code in this case to using an appropriate version of the GPL instead (as noted in the table), you can make this combination.
8: LGPLv3 gives you permission to relicense the code under GPLv3. In these cases, you can combine the code if you convert the LGPLed code to GPLv3.
Documentation Licenses
These are the Documentation Licenses that we're aware of. There are almost certainly other Documentation Licenses in existence, if your Fedora package uses a license not listed here, please email tcallawa@redhat.com with the details (and full license text).
Good Licenses
Here is a list of Documentation Licenses that are OK for Fedora. If your license is not in this list, and you'd like to know if it is appropriate for Fedora, please email the details to fedora-legal-list@redhat.com (note that this list is moderated, only members may directly post).
| Full Name | Short Name | FSF Free? | Upstream URL |
| Apple's Common Documentation License, Version 1.0 | CDL | Yes | http://www.opensource.apple.com/cdl/ |
| FreeBSD Documentation License | FBSDDL | Yes | http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html |
| GNU Free Documentation License | GFDL | Yes | http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/fdl.html |
| GNU General Public License | (See Note A) | Yes | http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html |
| IEEE and Open Group Documentation License | IEEE | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/IEEEDocLicense |
| Old FSF Documentation License | OFSFDL | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/OldFSFDocLicense |
| Open Publication License, v1.0 | Open Publication | Yes, provided the copyright holder does not exercise any of the “LICENSE OPTIONS” listed in Section VI | http://opencontent.org/openpub/ |
| Public Use License, v1.0 | Public Use | Yes | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/PublicUseLicense |
Note A: The GNU General Public License can be used for general data which is not software, as long as one can determine what the definition of “source code” refers to in the particular case. In English, it means that you can use the GPL for documentation, but it is not necessarily a good choice, unless you are able to define what "source code" means for your documentation. Also, if you use this license, use the appropriate versioning short names as described in the Software License section.
Bad Licenses
These are documentation licenses which are NOT OKAY for Fedora. Nothing in Fedora should be using these licenses. They're either non-free or deprecated.
| Full Name | FSF Free? | Upstream URL | Notes |
| Open Content License | No | http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml | |
| Open Directory License | No | http://dmoz.org/license.html | |
| W3C Documentation License | ? | http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents | Does not permit modification, different from W3C Software License |
Content Licenses
These are the Content Licenses that we're aware of. If your license is not in this list, and you'd like to know if it is appropriate for Fedora, please email the details to fedora-legal-list@redhat.com (note that this list is moderated, only members may directly post). You will also want to review the Code Vs Content section of the Packaging Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
Good Licenses
Here is a list of Content Licenses that are OK for Fedora. If your license is not in this list, and you'd like to know if it is appropriate for Fedora, please email the details to fedora-legal-list@redhat.com (note that this list is moderated, only members may directly post). Note that content must be freely distributable without restriction for inclusion in Fedora, and that a written statement from the content owner granting this is considered an approved license for Fedora. The one exception is that we permit content (but only content) which restricts modification as long as that is the only restriction.
| Full Name | Short Name | FSF Free? | Upstream URL |
| Creative Commons Attribution license | CC-BY | Yes | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ |
| Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike | CC-BY-SA | Yes | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ |
| Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs | CC-BY-ND | No | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ |
| Design Science License | DSL | Yes | http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/dsl.html |
| Ethymonics Free Music License | EFML | No | http://www.ethymonics.co.uk/fml.html |
| Free Art License | Free Art | Yes | http://artlibre.org/licence/lalgb.html |
| GNU General Public License | (See Note A) | Yes | http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html |
Note A: The GNU General Public License can be used for general data which is not software, as long as one can determine what the definition of “source code” refers to in the particular case. In English, it means that you can use the GPL for content, but it is not necessarily a good choice, unless you are able to define what "source code" means for your content. Also, if you use this license, use the appropriate versioning short names as described in the Software License section.
Bad Licenses
These are content licenses which are NOT OKAY for Fedora. Nothing in Fedora should be using these licenses. They're either non-free, deprecated, or have usage/distribution restrictions.
| Full Name | FSF Free? | Upstream URL | Notes |
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs | No | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ | |
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial | No | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ | |
| Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike | No | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ | |
| Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 | No | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/legalcode |
Font Licenses
These are the Font Licenses that we're aware of. If your license is not in this list, and you'd like to know if it is appropriate for Fedora, please email the details to fedora-legal-list@redhat.com (note that this list is moderated, only members may directly post).
The GPL is also a valid license for fonts. Refer to the Software Licensing table for the correct short name identifiers.
Good Licenses
Fedora recommends that font authors and foundries use the SIL Open Font License:
| Full Name | Short Name | FSF Free? | Upstream URL |
| SIL Open Font License 1.1 http://scripts.sil.org/cms/sites/nrsi/media/OFL_logo_rect_color.png | OFL | Yes | http://scripts.sil.org/OFL_web |
Here is a list of additional Font Licenses that are also OK for Fedora. If your license is not in this list, and you'd like to know if it is appropriate for Fedora, please email the details to legal@lists.fedoraproject.org.
Bad Licenses
This is a list of Font licenses which are NOT OKAY for Fedora. Nothing in Fedora should be using these licenses. They're either non-free, deprecated, or have usage/distribution restrictions.
| Full Name | FSF Free? | Upstream URL | Notes |
| DIP SIPA Font License | NO | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/DIP_SIPA_Font_License | Restrictions on modification |
| Larabie Fonts License | NO | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/LarabieFontsLicense | Cannot modify |
| Literat Font License | NO | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/LiteratFontLicense | Cannot modify |
| Ubuntu Font License | NO | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/UbuntuFontLicense | Poorly written, cannot actually use fonts |
Disclaimer
No usage of trademarks, either in this page or in any license "short identifiers" is intended as advertising. Any trademarks used are the property of their owners.