License problems

Artur Skura arturs at
Wed Apr 24 20:46:30 CEST 2002

Lukas this is a good idea (sorry for broken references, I just subscribed).
What is more I think we need to mark clearly which packages are restricted
in which way. 
In PLD-doc/licenses I used the following flags:

# D - forbidden Distribution

this means it should be deleted immediately unless we want a

# B - forbidden Binary distribution

for src.rpm

# C - forbidden Commercial use

this isn't really an issue for us

# I - forbidden commercial dIstribution

now this is useful for Linux+ and other CD-ROM vendors
telling them to stay away

# M - some restrictions regarding distributing Modified copies

this tells us that maybe we cannot make the package exactly as we want

# R - forbidden repackaging

this shouldn't be in .rpm's, maybe .src.rpm's

# * - needs clarification
it means we shouldn't do anything unless we clarify the license.

If we had something like this in the License field of 
non-GPL-BSD-MIT-other-known-licenses, all would be clear.

Another issue is these "distributable" packages. 99% is just BSD.

But worst is people putting "GPL" when the package has a very restrictive
license. Sorry, I can't check over 3 thousand sources to make sure
all is OK.


More information about the pld-devel-en mailing list