From Fedora Project Wiki

(Add GPLv1 only.)
(add Public Use License to docs section)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Author:''' [[TomCallaway|  Tom 'spot' Callaway]]  (based on many other documents, correspondence with the FSF)<BR>
'''Author:''' [[TomCallaway|  Tom 'spot' Callaway]]  (based on many other documents, correspondence with the FSF)<BR>
'''Revision:''' 0.87<BR>
'''Revision:''' 0.88<BR>
'''Initial Draft:''' Wednesday May 30, 2007<BR>
'''Initial Draft:''' Wednesday May 30, 2007<BR>
'''Last Revised:''' Wednesday May 28, 2008<BR>
'''Last Revised:''' Wednesday May 28, 2008<BR>
Line 560: Line 560:
|-
|-
|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/
|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
|}
|}



Revision as of 21:52, 28 May 2008

Author: Tom 'spot' Callaway (based on many other documents, correspondence with the FSF)
Revision: 0.88
Initial Draft: Wednesday May 30, 2007
Last Revised: Wednesday May 28, 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
CMU License (BSD like) MIT Yes Yes Yes http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT
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 Cryptix Yes NO 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
enna License MIT Yes Yes Yes http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#enna
Eiffel Forum License 2.0 EFL 2.0 Yes Yes http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/eiffel-forum-license-2.html
Enlightenment License (e16) MIT with advertising Yes NO NO http://www.enlightenment.org/viewvc/e16/e/COPYING?revision=1.10
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
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
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
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
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
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 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 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
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
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
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
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
Educational Community License ? ? http://opensource.org/licenses/ecl1.php
Entessa Public License ? ? http://opensource.org/licenses/entessa.php
Frameworx License ? ? http://opensource.org/licenses/frameworx.php
Motosoto License ? ? http://opensource.org/licenses/motosoto.php
OCLC Public Research License 2.0 ? ? http://opensource.org/licenses/oclc2.php
Open Group Test Suite License ? ? http://opensource.org/licenses/opengroup.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
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.

Full Name FSF Free? Upstream URL Notes
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs No http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial No http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike No http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 No http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/legalcode

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.