[horde] openSUSE legal question on Horde_Role -- Bugzilla [Bug 696337] New: Confirm version of LGPL in php5-pear-Horde_Role%1.0.0

[Jan Schneider]

Zitat von Michael M Slusarz <slusarz at horde.org>:

> Quoting Ralf Lang <lang at b1-systems.de>:
>
>> Hi folks, the openSUSE Legal team asked me to confirm the license status of
>> Horde_Role because one file says LGPL (no version, implying LGPL v3) and the
>> other file has a GPL header. PEAR says LGPL. I packaged that into rpm as as
>> LGPL.
>>
>> I expect them to have a lot more questions along that line, especially
>> regarding license versions.
>>
>> I always understood that you mean the license to be like the pear metadata
>> states. If a license file is given, that version as packaged is meant to be.
>>
>> If no license file is given, a license version in the metadata is  
>> the intended
>> version
>>
>> If no license version is given but a link, the latest/linked version of that
>> license applies.
>>
>> Can I have a confirmation from you on that package and on horde licensing in
>> general? That would facilitate matters a lot.
>>
>> I committed new versions of the LGPLv2 license files to git  
>> recently, because
>> their legal team would not like the outdated FSF address. I have no  
>> access to
>> the horde3 cvs trees of the released apps though.
>>
>>
>> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696337
>>
>> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696337#c0
>>
>>
>>           Summary: Confirm version of LGPL in php5-pear-Horde_Role%1.0.0
>>    Classification: SUSE Tools
>>           Product: SUSE Linux Legal Issues
>>           Version: unspecified
>>          Platform: Other
>>        OS/Version: Other
>>            Status: NEW
>>          Severity: Normal
>>          Priority: P5 - None
>>         Component: License Issues
>>        AssignedTo: lang at b1-systems.de
>>        ReportedBy: cfarrell at novell.com
>>         QAContact: jw at novell.com
>>             Group: Legal Security Team
>>          Found By: ---
>>           Blocker: ---
>>
>>
>> The spec file simply states License: LGPL. The package has e.g. the  
>> following
>> notice in Horde.php and in Role.php:
>> /**
>> * PEAR_Installer_Role_Horde
>> *
>> * Copyright 2010-2011 The Horde Project (http://www.horde.org/)
>> *
>> * See the enclosed file COPYING for license information (LGPL). If you
>> * did not receive this file, see http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/lgpl.html.
>> *
>> * @author    Michael Slusarz <slusarz at horde.org>
>> * @category  Horde
>> * @copyright 2010-2011 The Horde Project (http://www.horde.org/)
>> * @license   http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html GPL
>> * @package   Role
>> */
>>
>> /**
>> * @author    Michael Slusarz <slusarz at horde.org>
>> * @category  Horde
>> * @copyright 2010-2011 The Horde Project (http://www.horde.org/)
>> * @license   http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html GPL
>> * @package   Role
>> */
>>
>> It is not clear to me what version is being referred to. The link  
>> points to a
>> FSF webpage which would imply LGPL-3.0. The metadata states also  
>> that it could
>> be GPL (@license http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html GPL).
>
> All of this confusion was probably due to copy/paste errors from  
> other files.  Like (most) other Horde packages, Horde_Role should be  
> all LGPL.
>
> I personally would like to see a bit of cleanup on our licensing  
> quoting standards.  I think it would be most useful if we host the  
> relevant licenses on http://horde.org/ and then add the phpdoc links  
> to this local link rather than a FSF link.  Gives us more control  
> over the license text, and could provide a more thorough listing of  
> the licenses we are using in a single location.

We already have all license we've picked ourselves on the web server,  
and there's http://www.horde.org/licenses. No objections from me to  
linking there instead of to the original licenses' locations.

Jan.

-- 
Do you need professional PHP or Horde consulting?
http://horde.org/consulting/