Licensing:Main

Author: Tom 'spot' Callaway (based on many other documents, correspondence with the FSF)
Revision: 1.03
Initial Draft: Wednesday May 30, 2007
Last Revised: Saturday Aug 23, 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

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:
  1. 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
  2. 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:

1. any restrictions that are found in software licenses that are acceptable for Fedora;
2. prohibitions on modification;
3. prohibitions on reverse engineering, disassembly or decompilation;
4. 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
CeCILL-B License	CeCILL-B	Yes	NO	NO	http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html
CeCILL-C License	CeCILL-C	Yes	NO	NO	http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html
CMU License (BSD like)	MIT	Yes	Yes	Yes	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT
CNRI License (Old Python)	CNRI	Yes	NO	NO	http://www.handle.net/python_licenses/python1.6_9-5-00.html
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	BSD	Yes	Yes	Yes	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
Educational Community License 1.0	ECL 1.0	Yes	Yes	Yes	http://opensource.org/licenses/ecl1.php
Educational Community License 2.0	ECL 2.0	Yes	NO	Yes	http://www.osedu.org/licenses/ECL-2.0/
Eiffel Forum License 2.0	EFL 2.0	Yes	Yes		http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/eiffel-forum-license-2.html
enna License	MIT	Yes	Yes	Yes	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#enna
Enlightenment License (e16)	MIT with advertising	Yes	NO	NO	http://www.enlightenment.org/viewvc/e16/e/COPYING?revision=1.10
Erlang Public License 1.1	ERPL	Yes	NO	NO	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/ErlangPublicLicense
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
GL2PS License	GL2PS	Yes	Yes	Yes	http://www.geuz.org/gl2ps/COPYING.GL2PS
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
Lisp Library General Public License	LLGPL	Yes	Yes	Yes	http://opensource.franz.com/preamble.html
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
Motosoto License	Motosoto	Yes	NO	NO	http://opensource.org/licenses/motosoto.php
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
MX4J License	ASL 1.1	Yes	NO	NO	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MX4J
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
Nunit License	MIT with advertising	Yes	NO		http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Nunit
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 2.1	OSL 2.1	Yes	NO	NO	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/OSL2.1
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	NO	Some perl packages explicitly state GPLv2, only use this license for those cases
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
SCRIP License	SCRIP	Yes	Yes	Yes	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/SCRIP
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
Yahoo Public License v 1.1	YPLv1.1	Yes	NO	NO	http://www.zimbra.com/license/yahoo_public_license_1.1.html
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.

Full Name	FSF Free?	Upstream URL	Notes
9wm License	No	http://unauthorised.org/dhog/9wm/README	The argument that there's a strongly-implied right to modify is unlikely to fly in many countries outside the US.
Adaptive Public License	No	http://opensource.org/licenses/apl1.0.php
Aladdin Free Public License	No	http://www.artifex.com/downloads/doc/Public.htm
Apple Public Source License 1.0	No	http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/1.0.txt
Apple Public Source License 1.1	No	http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/1.1.txt
Apple Public Source License 1.2	No	http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/1.2.txt
Artistic 1.0 (original)	No	http://www.perl.com/pub/a/language/misc/Artistic.html	GPL+Artistic is OK
AT&T Public License	No		Deprecated license
C/Migemo License	No	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CMigemo
eCos Public License, v1.1	No
Eiffel Forum License 1.0	No	http://www.gobosoft.com/eiffel/gobo/eiffel_forum_license_v1.html
GPL for Computer Programs of the Public Administration	No	http://www.celepar.pr.gov.br/modules/conteudo/conteudo.php?conteudo=69
gSOAP Public License	No	http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~engelen/license.html
Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement	No	http://www.hacktivismo.com/about/hessla.php
Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer	N/A	http://opensource.org/licenses/historical.php	Deprecated license
Intel Open Source License	Yes	http://opensource.org/licenses/intel-open-source-license.php	Deprecated license
Jahia Community Source License	No	http://www.jahia.org/jahia/Jahia/pid/145
lha license	No	http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/l/lha/current/copyright
Maia Mailguard License	No	http://www.maiamailguard.org/license.php
MeepZor Consulting Public Licence	No	http://meepzor.com/packages/autoresponder/LICENCE.txt	Deprecated, upstream uses ASL 2.0 now
Microsoft's Shared Source CLI/C#/Jscript License	No	http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/901/ShSourceCLIbetaLicense.htm
MITRE Collaborative Virtual Workspace License (CVW)	N/A	http://opensource.org/licenses/mitrepl.php	Deprecated license
MSNTP License	No	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MSNTP	Commercial use restrictions
NASA Open Source Agreement v1.3	No	http://opensource.arc.nasa.gov/static/html/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement_1.3.txt
OCLC Public Research License 2.0	No	http://opensource.org/licenses/oclc2.php	Appears to limit the price at which a copy can be charged, not just simply prohibiting imposition of royalties.
Open Group Test Suite License	No	http://opensource.org/licenses/opengroup.php	Same flaws as Artistic 1.0
Open Motif Public End User License	No	http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/license/	Commercial use restrictions
Open Public License	No	http://koala.ilog.fr/jackaroo/OPL_1_0.TXT
Pine License	No	http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html
qmail License	No	http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html	deprecated, qmail is now public domain
Reciprocal Public License	No	http://www.opensource.org/licenses/rpl.php
Scilab License	No	http://www.scilab.org/legal/license.html
SGI Free Software License B	No	http://oss.sgi.com/projects/FreeB/
SGI GLX Public License	No	http://www.sgi.com/products/software/opensource/glx/license.html
Siren14 License Agreement	No	http://www.polycom.com/common/pw_item_show_doc/0,,4424,00.pdf
Squeak License	No	http://squeak.org/SqueakLicense/
Sun Community Source License	No	http://www.sun.com/software/communitysource/
Sun Solaris Source Code (Foundation Release) License	No	http://www.mibsoftware.com/librock/librock/license/ssscfr.txt
Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0	No	http://opensource.org/licenses/sybase.php
University of Utah Public License	No	http://www.cs.utah.edu/~gk/teem/txt/LICENSE.txt
University of Washington Free Fork License	No	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/UofWFreeFork	No longer used
unrar license	No	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Unrar	Use restrictions, forced removal clause, see license page for details
X.Net License	N/A	http://opensource.org/licenses/xnet.php	Deprecated license
Yahoo Public License 1.0	No	http://www.zimbra.com/license/yahoo_public_license_1.0.html

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
Entessa Public License	?	?	http://opensource.org/licenses/entessa.php
Frameworx License	?	?	http://opensource.org/licenses/frameworx.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
GeoGratis Licence Agreement	GeoGratis	Yes	http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/geogratis/en/licence.jsp
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.

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.

Full Name	Short Name	FSF Free?	Upstream URL
Adobe/TUG Utopia license agreement	Utopia	?	http://tug.org/fonts/utopia/LICENSE-utopia.txt
AMS Bluesky Font License	AMS	?	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/AMS
Arphic Public License	Arphic	Yes	http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/non-gnu/chinese-fonts-truetype/LICENSE
Atkinson Hyperlegible Font License	AHFL	?	https://www.brailleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Atkinson-Hyperlegible-Font-License-2020-1104.pdf
Baekmuk License	Baekmuk	Yes	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Baekmuk
Bitstream Vera Font License	Bitstream Vera	?	http://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts
Charter License	Charter	Yes	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Charter
Creative Commons Attribution license	CC-BY	Yes	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
DoubleStroke Font License	DoubleStroke	Yes	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Fonts/DoubleStroke
ec Font License	ec	Yes	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Fonts/ec
Elvish Font License	Elvish	Yes	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Elvish
GUST Font License	LPPL	Yes	http://tug.org/fonts/licenses/GUST-FONT-LICENSE.txt
Hack Open Font License	HOFL	?	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/HackOpenFontLicense
Hershey Font License	Hershey	?	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/HersheyFontLicense
IPA Font License	IPA	Yes	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/IPAFontLicense
Liberation Font License	Liberation	Yes	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/LiberationFontLicense
LaTeX Project Public License	LPPL	Yes	http://www.latex-project.org/lppl/lppl-1-3a.txt
Lucida Legal Notice	Lucida	?	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Lucida
MgOpen Font License	MgOpen	?	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Fonts/MgOpen
mplus Font License	mplus	Yes	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/mplus
ParaType Font License	PTFL	Yes	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Fonts/ParaType_Font_License
Punknova Font License	Punknova	Yes	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Fonts/Punknova
STIX Fonts User License	STIX	Yes	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/STIXFontsUserLicense
TTYP0 License	MIT	?	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT#ttyp0_variant
Wadalab Font License	Wadalab	Yes	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Wadalab
XANO Mincho Font License	XANO	Yes	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MinchoFontLicense

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.