|Summary:||cfortran.h is non-free|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora EPEL||Reporter:||Dave Love <dave.love>|
|Component:||netcdf||Assignee:||Orion Poplawski <orion>|
|Status:||CLOSED NOTABUG||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||el6||CC:||dakingun, jspaleta, orion, pertusus, tcallawa|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|:||1197903 (view as bug list)||Environment:|
|Last Closed:||2015-09-19 22:41:24 UTC||Type:||Bug|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:|
Description Dave Love 2015-03-02 21:51:33 UTC
Description of problem: I discovered the source contains cfortran.h (in the fortran directory). It's non-free and distributed without the required notice anyway. See the end of http://www-zeus.desy.de/~burow/cfortran/cfortran.html Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): netcdf-4.1.1-3
Comment 1 Orion Poplawski 2015-03-02 23:02:19 UTC
Hmm, this is interesting. cfortran.h has: THIS FILE IS PROPERTY OF BURKHARD BUROW. IF YOU ARE USING THIS FILE YOU SHOULD ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO CFORTRAN.DOC WHICH PROVIDES TERMS FOR USING, MODIFYING, COPYING AND DISTRIBUTING THE CFORTRAN.H PACKAGE. However, the cfortran.doc http://www-zeus.desy.de/~burow/cfortran/cfortran.doc file has: THIS PACKAGE, I.E. CFORTRAN.H, THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE CFORTRAN.H EXAMPLE PROGRAMS ARE PROPERTY OF THE AUTHOR WHO RESERVES ALL RIGHTS. THIS PACKAGE AND THE CODE IT PRODUCES MAY BE FREELY DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT FEES, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS: - YOU MUST ACCOMPANY ANY COPIES OR DISTRIBUTION WITH THIS (UNALTERED) NOTICE. - YOU MAY NOT RECEIVE MONEY FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OR FOR ITS MEDIA (E.G. TAPE, DISK, COMPUTER, PAPER.) - YOU MAY NOT PREVENT OTHERS FROM COPYING IT FREELY. - YOU MAY NOT DISTRIBUTE MODIFIED VERSIONS WITHOUT CLEARLY DOCUMENTING YOUR CHANGES AND NOTIFYING THE AUTHOR. - YOU MAY NOT MISREPRESENTED THE ORIGIN OF THIS SOFTWARE, EITHER BY EXPLICIT CLAIM OR BY OMISSION. THE INTENT OF THE ABOVE TERMS IS TO ENSURE THAT THE CFORTRAN.H PACKAGE NOT BE USED FOR PROFIT MAKING ACTIVITIES UNLESS SOME ROYALTY ARRANGEMENT IS ENTERED INTO WITH ITS AUTHOR. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE SOFTWARE PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. THE AUTHOR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY SUPPORT OR SERVICE OF THE CFORTRAN.H PACKAGE. So this does appear to be forbidden in Fedora. Tom - do you concur? This is unfortunate as I believe this will mean having to drop the fortran bindings to netcdf from Fedora/EPEL.
Comment 2 Dave Love 2015-03-03 11:02:52 UTC
I realized that it must be a problem for cernlib etc. too, and I thought Debian distributed that stuff. I check and found a separate package with the copyright file http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/c/cfortran/cfortran_4.4-14_copyright so I think we're OK providing that's included and LGPL is compatible with the NetCDF licence in this case, i.e. not as a separate library. It looks so, and I guess there's enough non-prototype code included from cfortran.h that the result should be LGPL. [This will be the same for root and anything similar but I don't have time to check that right now. I wonder if there's some mechanical way of finding uses of cfortran.h.]
Comment 3 Orion Poplawski 2015-03-09 18:57:38 UTC
LGPL actually does seem to be problematic for static usage. Burkhard has agreed to license as MPL2+ as well. Hopefully will have a github page up soon with updated license.
Comment 4 Dave Love 2015-03-10 11:14:41 UTC
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #3) > LGPL actually does seem to be problematic for static usage. I don't understand why, but if so, there are quite a few LGPL -static packages which will be a problem (including cernlib, which I guess is the canonical source of cfortran.h).
Comment 5 Tom "spot" Callaway 2015-03-30 20:05:43 UTC
Since LGPL (and maybe MPL) are options here, this isn't a legal issue really. Lifting FE-Legal.