I have one specific question and some general questions about Mandrake's licensing policies.
Let me start with the specific question: Frodo (a C64 emulator) allows you to use, distribute, etc. Frodo binaries and source code, and to use Frodo's source in a compatibly-licensed larger work (anything non-commercial). But you can't distributed a modified version of Frodo itself. Is this appropriate for contribs? (I've enclosed the complete license at the end). And, if so, what License tag should the RPM carry? And this leads to the general question: what to put in the License tags if nothing in the official list fits (that is, if rpmlint complains), but the package should be compatible with Mandrake anyway? Here are some common cases: * Artistic-or-GPL (very common on perl modules): you can redistribute it in whole or in part under Artistic, GPL, or Artistic-or-GPL. * Embedded-variant Artistic License (usually on perl modules written by academic types): Artistic, but with the extra "no overt attempt is made to make this Package's interfaces visible to the end user of a non-compatible larger work" clause. no overt attempt is made to make this Package's interfaces visible to the end user of the commercial distribution * BSD-or-GPL (common on small libraries): like Aristic-or-GPL, or sometimes slightly different--the package as-is is under BSD (or X11 or MIT), but you can relicense any part of it under GPL and/or LGPL to use in a larger work. * BSD-like and MIT-like licenses (common all over the place): A license which is functionally equivalent to BSD or MIT but worded differently (which may even make reference to its intended equivalence to BSD or MIT). * Sloppily-written licenses that make no sense (common on programs that originated as shareware or closed-source freeware, and on small libraries that originated in the Windows world): My favorite example is, "I retain the copyright, but you can do whatever you want with the code anyway, with no silly GPL or BSD restrictions." No BSD restrictions is probably supposed to mean MIT-like, but (as the author of the quoted license acknowledged) the actual effect is that you can make an exact copy of the source and relicense it any way you want (including releasing it to the public domain). What do we call such a thing? Or, is it nicer to the author to give it an MIT-or-GPL license or something like that? I think I've seen at least "BSD-like" and "Artistic-or-GPL" on contrib packages, but I'm not sure (there doesn't seem to be a urpmf --license or anything equivalent...). And, in the case of Artistic-or-GPL and the simple BSD-or-GPL, should we put the one-liner "or" clause in a license file and refer to common-licenses for the Artistic, GPL, BSD, etc.? (Usually, Artistic-or-GPL packages have a license file that has the one-liner plus the Artistic license, then the GPL license in a separate file--or everything in one file. The same goes for BSD-or-GPL licenses.) Anyway, here's the Frodo license: --- CUT HERE --- > The program "Frodo", this manual and the source code may be freely > distributed as long as they remain unchanged (archiving and packing is > allowed) and all files are included. You must not make any profit by selling > Frodo, especially the price of a disk containing Frodo may not exceed > US$ 5,- (or equivalent amounts in other currencies). Please feel free to > distribute Frodo via bulletin board systems and networks and as part of > shareware/freeware CD-ROMs. > > Anyone using this program agrees to incur the risk of using it for himself. > In no way can the author be held responsible for any damage directly or > indirectly caused by the use or misuse of this manual and/or the program. > > The rights on the source code remain at the author. It may not - not even > in parts - used for commercial purposes without explicit written permission > by the author. Permission to use it for non-commercial purposes is hereby > granted als long as my copyright notice remains in the program. > > You are not allowed to use the source to create and distribute a modified > version of Frodo. > > Frodo is not designed, intended, or authorized for use as a component in > systems intended for surgical implant within the body, or other applications > intended to support or sustain life, or for any other application in which > the failure of Frodo could create a situation where personal injury or death > may occur.
