[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
jan at horde.org
Wed Jun 1 17:56:20 UTC 2011
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 their legal team would not like the outdated FSF address.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/
More information about the horde
mailing list