https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2414840
--- Comment #20 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- The license situation here is weird. COPYING is GPLv3 COPYING.LESSER is LGPLv3 ChangeLog has: > 2023-11-28 Daniel Price <[email protected]> > > * COPYING, LICENSE: changed license to LGPL3 And docs/index.html has: > Giza is currently distributed under the <a > href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html";>LGPL license</a>. But all of the source file still have this header: > /* giza - a scientific plotting library built on cairo > * > * Copyright (c) 2010 James Wetter and Daniel Price > * Copyright (c) 2010-2012 Daniel Price > * > * This library is free software; and you are welcome to redistribute > * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License > * (GPL, see LICENSE file for details) and the provision that > * this notice remains intact. If you modify this file, please > * note section 5a) of the GPLv3 states that: > * > * a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified > * it, and giving a relevant date. > * > * This software is distributed "AS IS", with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. > * See the GPL for specific language governing rights and limitations. > * > * The Original code is the giza plotting library. > * > * Contributor(s): > * James Wetter <[email protected]> > * Daniel Price <[email protected]> (main contact) > */ which is GPLv3, probably GPL-3.0-only in SPDX terms since there is no “or any later version” language, although it’s a slightly ambiguous notice. However, there is an unusual extra bit here: > and the provision that this notice remains intact. which probably needs to be reviewed in https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues. From https://github.com/danieljprice/giza/pull/69, upstream seems to have the impression that they can include GPL-licensed sources in a library and still call it LGPL overall. I don’t find this convincing, and would probably call it “LGPL-3.0-only AND GPL-3.0-only”, subject to review of the “and the provision that this notice remains intact” language. I see nothing that indicates a disjunctive choice of licenses, so I don’t think “LGPL-3.0-only or GPL-3.0-only” is correct. The files src/*.pc.in have this license: > # This file is free software; as a special exception the author gives > # unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without > # modifications, as long as this notice is preserved. > # > # This file is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but > # WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law; without even the > # implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. which seems like a close enough match for FSFULLRWD, https://spdx.org/licenses/FSFULLRWD.html. Since the .pc files generated from these are installed in the -devel subpackage, the -devel subpackage should have a corresponding license term, like: # .pc files are FSFULLRWD License: LGPL-3.0-only AND GPL-3.0-only AND FSFULLRWD -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2414840 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202414840%23c20 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
