Bug 2323097
Summary: | Requesting clarification on the License of xrdp rpm. | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora EPEL | Reporter: | dileep.gunda |
Component: | xrdp | Assignee: | Bojan Smojver <bojan> |
Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | epel9 | CC: | bojan, shngmao |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | Type: | Bug | |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
dileep.gunda
2024-11-01 02:12:08 UTC
Right now, xrdp is licensed under ASL 2.0: https://github.com/neutrinolabs/xrdp/blob/devel/COPYING https://github.com/neutrinolabs/xrdp/blob/v0.10/COPYING However, it used to be licensed under GPL 2+: https://github.com/neutrinolabs/xrdp/commit/1123323fda6d128fb98b0427e0ea5f6a2dc9e632 If you find mentions of MIT licence in the code, it is entirely possible that some files have been brought in that were licences that way. MIT is a permissive licence and I would not be surprised for this to be the case. If you need 100% authoritative view on this, please open an upstream bug and ask there. The developers will know for sure. |