License clarification

[nullr0ute]

The top level license for the library is listed as BSD-2 but there's a few files in the library that are licensed explicitly as CC0-1.0, these are mostly the meson* files but also utils/libpisp.wrap and utils/version.py. Is there a reason these are licensed differently to the rest of the library given that it's listed as BSD-2? Is it possible to either relicense or dual license those files to make the whole archive as the single license?

[naushir]

This is just convention for RPi to have no-source files using the CC license. Is this an causing an issue?

[jspaleta]

@naushir
Hey yeah, there a license policy issue with Fedora that @nullr0ute has run into when trying to get libpisp into Fedora.

As the Fedora Project Leader right now, I feel like I can speak to it a bit.

The creative commons have established guidance against the use of CC license family for software ref: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software

This Creative Commons guidance is factored into the Fedora project packaging review process and the CC family of licenses are not allowed for functional software components.

For example the utils/version.py explicitly defines functional "software" and isn't "content" as the Creative Commons would expect the license to be applied to.

And since the majority of files in the utils directory are already BSD-2 licensed, including other python files, if possible, the cleanest resolution would be for upstream to make all the contents in that directory BSD-2. I'll note that other files in this directory have already had their license changed from GPL to BSD-2.

And the version.py commit history indicated that it was originally uploaded without the CC license, so perhaps the relicensing to a CC license was just an oversight? And the intent was to make everything in util/ BSD-2. That would make the most sense given the history of the commit log for the files in this directory.

[naushir]

#51 ought to fix this issue.

[jspaleta]

thanks,
I'll double check with the person doing the package view that is working with @nullr0ute and make sure these are the sufficient changes.

[naushir]

Changes have now been merged. If you still have problems with other licensing issues, please do let us know.