Author: Tom 'spot' Callaway (based on many other documents, correspondence with the FSF)
Revision: 0.83
Initial Draft: Wednesday May 30, 2007
Last Revised: Wednesday Apr 30, 2008
Contents
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
Most emulators (applications which emulate another platform) are not permitted for inclusion in Fedora. The rule of thumb to follow is: If it requires ROMs (or image files in any format) of copyrighted or patented material to be useful (and the owners of those copyrights and patents have not given their express written permission), then it's not permitted.
Binary Firmware
Some applications and drivers require binary-only firmware to function. Fedora permits inclusion of these files as long as they meet the following requirements:
Requirements:
- The files are non-executable (note: this means that the files cannot run on their own, not that they are just chmod -x)
- The files are not libraries.
- The files are standalone, not embedded in executable or library code.
- Explicit permission is given by the owner to freely redistribute without restrictions (this permission must be included, in "writing", with the files in the packaging)
- The files must be necessary for the functionality of open source code being included in Fedora.
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.
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 |
|
Academic Free License |
AFL |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences BSD |
AMPAS BSD |
Yes |
NO |
NO |
|
Adobe Systems Incorporated Source Code License Agreement |
Adobe |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Affero General Public License 1.0 |
AGPLv1 |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
Affero General Public License 3.0 |
AGPLv3 |
Yes |
NO |
||
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 |
|
Apache Software License 1.1 |
ASL 1.1 |
Yes |
NO |
NO |
|
Apache Software License 2.0 |
ASL 2.0 |
Yes |
NO |
Yes |
|
Apple Public Source License 2.0 |
APSL 2.0 |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
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 |
|
Aspell-ru License |
ARL |
Yes |
NO |
NO |
|
BitTorrent License |
Yes |
NO |
NO |
||
Boost Software License |
Boost |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
BSD License (original) |
BSD with advertising |
Yes |
NO |
NO |
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#BSDwithAdvertising |
BSD License (no advertising) |
BSD |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
BSD License (two clause) |
BSD |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
CeCILL License v2 |
CeCILL |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
CMU License (BSD like) |
MIT |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Common Development Distribution License |
CDDL |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
Common Public License |
CPL |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
Condor Public License |
Condor |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
Copyright Attribution Only |
Copyright only |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
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 |
|
|
Crystal Stacker License |
Crystal Stacker |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License |
WTFPL |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
DOC License |
DOC |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Eclipse Public License 1.0 |
EPL |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
eCos License v2.0 |
eCos |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
enna License |
MIT |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
feh License |
MIT |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
FLTK License |
LGPLv2 with exceptions |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
FreeImage Public License |
MPLv1.0 |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
Freetype License |
FTL |
Yes |
NO |
Yes |
|
Giftware License |
Giftware |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
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 v2.0 only |
GPLv2 |
Yes |
|||
GNU General Public License v2.0 only, with font embedding exception |
GPLv2 with exceptions |
Yes |
|||
GNU General Public License v2.0 or later |
GPLv2+ |
Yes |
N/A |
||
GNU General Public License v2.0 or later, with font embedding exception |
GPLv2+ with exceptions |
Yes |
N/A |
||
GNU General Public License v3.0 only |
GPLv3 |
Yes |
N/A |
||
GNU General Public License v3.0 only, with font embedding exception |
GPLv3 with exceptions |
Yes |
N/A |
||
GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
GPLv3+ |
Yes |
N/A |
||
GNU General Public License v3.0 or later, with font embedding exception |
GPLv3+ with exceptions |
Yes |
N/A |
||
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. |
GNU Lesser General Public License v2 (or 2.1) only |
LGPLv2 |
Yes |
|||
GNU Lesser General Public License v2 (or 2.1), with exceptions |
LGPLv2 with exceptions |
Yes |
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 |
|||
GNU Lesser General Public License v2 (or 2.1) or later, with exceptions |
LGPLv2+ with exceptions |
Yes |
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 |
|||
GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 only, with exceptions |
LGPLv3 with exceptions |
Yes |
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 |
|||
GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later, with exceptions |
LGPLv3+ with exceptions |
Yes |
Please be sure that any exceptions are approved by emailing them to fedora-legal-list@redhat.com first. |
||
gnuplot License |
gnuplot |
Yes |
NO |
NO |
|
IBM Public License |
IBM |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
iMatix Standard Function Library Agreement |
iMatix |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
ImageMagick License |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
||
Imlib2 License |
Imlib2 |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Independent JPEG Group License |
IJG |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Intel ACPI Software License Agreement |
Intel ACPI |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Interbase Public License |
Interbase |
Yes |
NO |
|
http://www.borland.com/devsupport/interbase/opensource/IPL.html |
ISC License (Bind, DHCP Server) |
ISC |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Jabber Open Source License |
Jabber |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
JasPer License |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
||
LaTeX Project Public License |
LPPL |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
Lawrence Berkeley National Labs BSD variant license |
LBNL BSD |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
libtiff License |
libtiff |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Lucent Public License (Plan9) |
LPL |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
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 |
|
Mozilla Public License v1.0 |
MPLv1.0 |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
Mozilla Public License v1.1 |
MPLv1.1 |
Yes |
Compatible if dual licensed with GPL, otherwise Incompatible |
|
|
mpich2 License |
MIT |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
MySQL License |
GPLv2 with exceptions |
Yes |
? |
|
http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html |
Naumen Public License |
Naumen |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
NCSA/University of Illinois Open Source License |
NCSA |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Neotonic Clearsilver License |
ASL 1.1 |
Yes |
NO |
NO |
|
NetCDF license |
NetCDF |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Nethack General Public License |
NGPL |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
Netizen Open Source License |
NOSL |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
Netscape Public License |
Netscape |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
Nokia Open Source License |
Nokia |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
NRL License |
BSD with advertising |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
OpenLDAP License |
OpenLDAP |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
OpenPBS License |
OpenPBS |
Yes |
NO |
NO |
|
Open Software License 1.0 |
OSL 1.0 |
Yes |
NO |
NO |
|
Open Software License 1.1 |
OSL 1.1 |
Yes |
NO |
NO |
|
Open Software License 2.0 |
OSL 2.0 |
Yes |
NO |
NO |
|
Open Software License 3.0 |
OSL 3.0 |
Yes |
NO |
NO |
|
OpenSSL License |
OpenSSL |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
OReilly License |
OReilly |
Yes |
NO |
NO |
|
Perl License |
GPL+ or Artistic |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
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 |
|
|
PHP License v3.0 |
PHP |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Q Public License |
QPL |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
RealNetworks Public Source License V1.0 |
RPSL |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
Ruby License |
Ruby |
Yes |
Compatible if dual licensed with GPL, otherwise Incompatible |
|
|
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 |
|
Sleepycat Software Product License |
Sleepycat |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
SLIB License |
SLIB |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Standard ML of New Jersey License |
MIT |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Sun Industry Standards Source License |
SISSL |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
Sun Public License |
SPL |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
TCL/TK License |
TCL |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Unicode Character Database Terms Of Use |
UCD |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Vim License |
Vim |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Vita Nuova Liberal Source License |
VNLSL |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
VOSTROM Public License for Open Source |
VOSTROM |
Yes |
NO |
NO |
|
Vovida Software License v. 1.0 |
VSL |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
W3C Software Notice and License |
W3C |
Yes |
Yes |
|
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231 |
wxWidgets Library License |
wxWidgets |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
xinetd License |
xinetd |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
Xerox License |
Xerox |
Yes |
NO |
NO |
|
Zend License v2.0 |
Zend |
Yes |
NO |
|
|
Zope Public License v 1.0 |
ZPLv1.0 |
Yes |
NO |
NO |
|
Zope Public License v 2.0 |
ZPLv2.0 |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Zope Public License v 2.1 |
ZPLv2.1 |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
zlib/libpng License |
zlib |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
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 |
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 |
|
|
Aladdin Free Public License |
No |
|
|
Apple Public Source License 1.0 |
No |
|
|
Apple Public Source License 1.1 |
No |
|
|
Apple Public Source License 1.2 |
No |
|
|
Artistic 1.0 (original) |
No |
GPL+Artistic is OK |
|
AT&T Public License |
No |
|
Deprecated license |
C/Migemo License |
No |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement |
No |
|
|
Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer |
N/A |
Deprecated license |
|
Intel Open Source License |
Yes |
http://opensource.org/licenses/intel-open-source-license.php |
Deprecated license |
Jahia Community Source License |
No |
|
|
lha license |
No |
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/l/lha/current/copyright |
|
Maia Mailguard License |
No |
|
|
MeepZor Consulting Public Licence |
No |
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 |
Deprecated license |
|
MSNTP License |
No |
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 |
Commercial use restrictions |
|
Open Public License |
No |
|
|
Pine License |
No |
|
|
qmail License |
No |
deprecated, qmail is now public domain |
|
Reciprocal Public License |
No |
|
|
Rice BSD |
No |
|
|
Scilab License |
No |
|
|
SGI Free Software License B |
No |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Sun Community Source License |
No |
|
|
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 |
|
|
University of Utah Public License |
No |
|
|
unrar license |
No |
Use restrictions, forced removal clause, see license page for details |
|
X.Net License |
N/A |
Deprecated license |
|
Yahoo Public License 1.0 |
No |
|
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 |
? |
? |
|
Computer Associates Trusted Open Source License 1.1 |
? |
? |
|
CUA Office Public License Version 1.0 |
? |
? |
|
Educational Community License |
? |
? |
|
Entessa Public License |
? |
? |
|
Frameworx License |
? |
? |
|
Motosoto License |
? |
? |
|
OCLC Public Research License 2.0 |
? |
? |
|
Open Group Test Suite License |
? |
? |
|
Ricoh Source Code Public License |
? |
? |
|
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] |
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 [8] |
|
|
LGPLv2.1 only |
OK if you convert to GPLv2 [7] |
OK if you convert to GPLv3 [7] |
OK |
OK [6] |
||
|
LGPLv2.1 or later |
OK if you convert to GPL [7] |
OK if you convert to GPLv3 [7] |
OK [5] |
OK |
OK |
|
|
LGPLv3 |
NO |
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] |
NO |
|
|
GPLv2 or later |
OK [1] |
OK |
OK |
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 [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 |
|
FreeBSD Documentation License |
FBSDDL |
Yes |
|
GNU Free Documentation License |
GFDL |
Yes |
|
GNU General Public License |
(See Note A) |
Yes |
|
IEEE and Open Group Documentation License |
IEEE |
Yes |
|
Old FSF Documentation License |
OFSFDL |
Yes |
|
Open Pub |