While checking the contents of our `perl' package, I noticed the following:
/* NOTE: this is derived from Henry Spencer's regexp code, and should not
* confused with the original package (see point 3 below). Thanks, Henry!
/* Additional note: this code is very heavily munged from Henry's version
* in places. In some spots I've traded clarity for efficiency, so don't
* blame Henry for some of the lack of readability.
/* The names of the functions have been changed from regcomp and
* regexec to pregcomp and pregexec in order to avoid conflicts
* with the POSIX routines of the same names.
* pregcomp and pregexec -- regsub and regerror are not used in perl
* Copyright (c) 1986 by University of Toronto.
* Written by Henry Spencer. Not derived from licensed software.
* Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any
* purpose on any computer system, and to redistribute it freely,
* subject to the following restrictions:
* 1. The author is not responsible for the consequences of use of
* this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise
* from defects in it.
* 2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either
* by explicit claim or by omission.
* 3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not
* be misrepresented as being the original software.
**** Alterations to Henry's code are...
**** Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
**** 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
**** by Larry Wall and others
**** You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
**** License or the Artistic License, as specified in the README file.
You can see the whole file here:
I looked but couldn't find any common name for this license
of Henry's. Is it on our list? Is it free? What name should
I use in the License tag?
I am working on a package for the sFizz project which provides a VST3
plugin, among others. The VST3 SDK from Steinberg is licensed under a
compatible license, but imposes extra "guidelines" which has previously
seen it be inadmissible in the Fedora repos and lead to some considerable
effort to work around. One of the developers of sFizz asked the question on
the Steinberg Forum:
Which contains relevant links, however I also received other information
from another source that stated:
Section 7: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further
restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term.
Yet someone else countered this with:
Section 7 also contains a list of non-permissive additional terms that
*are* allowed to be imposed on top of the gpl
Can someone comment on this please, I'd prefer not to have to strip the VST
plugin as it is the preferred format and would take considerable effort to
The Mobile Verification Toolkit project (developed by the Amnesty
International Security Lab in light of the recent news about the Pegasus
spyware) is using an adapted MPL 2.0 license, the MVT License.
I'd like for this license to be vetted by the legal team, and added to the
list of allowed licenses in Fedora so the software can be distributed
through Fedora channels.
> The purpose of MVT is to facilitate the consensual forensic analysis of
> devices of those who might be targets of sophisticated mobile spyware
> attacks, especially members of civil society and marginalized communities.
> We do not want MVT to enable privacy violations of non-consenting
> individuals. Therefore, the goal of this license is to prohibit the use of
> MVT (and any other software licensed the same) for the purpose of
> adversarial forensics.
> In order to achieve this, MVT is released under an adaptation of Mozilla
> Public License v2.0. This modified license includes a new clause 3.0,
> "Consensual Use Restriction" which permits the use of the licensed software
> (and any "Larger Work" derived from it) exclusively with the explicit
> consent of the person/s whose data is being extracted and/or analysed
> ("Data Owner").
Full License text at https://github.com/mvt-project/mvt/blob/main/LICENSE
With version 6 of the elementary OS wallpapers for Pantheon, they
include some new wallpapers that are no longer under the "old" CC0
License for conntent from unsplash.com, but now available under the
"Unsplash License", which is not listed as an acceptable / good
content license in the Fedora licensing Wiki .
The new Unsplash license text  seems to be very permissive
(included below for quick reference) but I still wanted to check in
here if it's okay, and if it could be added to the list of acceptable
licenses for content in Fedora, with a documented "Unsplash" short
identifier for RPM License tags maybe?
-- begin license text
Unsplash grants you an irrevocable, nonexclusive, worldwide copyright
license to download, copy, modify, distribute, perform, and use photos
from Unsplash for free, including for commercial purposes, without
permission from or attributing the photographer or Unsplash. This
license does not include the right to compile photos from Unsplash to
replicate a similar or competing service.
-- end license text
I'm asking the Fedora legal team to review the latest Audacity license
and privacy notice:
> The App we provide is not intended for individuals below the age of
13. If you are under 13 years old, please do not use the App.
Also it now collects a lot of sensitive data and send them to Google and
Yandex. I believe this violates the GDPR.
I think this application is no longer completely free and open source
and should be removed from Fedora.
Vitaly Zaitsev (vitaly(a)easycoding.org)