Bug 1082367 - azureus: GPL code linked with GPL-incompatible libraries
azureus: GPL code linked with GPL-incompatible libraries
Status: NEW
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: azureus (Show other bugs)
24
Unspecified Unspecified
unspecified Severity unspecified
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: David Juran
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-Legal
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2014-03-30 16:14 EDT by Mikolaj Izdebski
Modified: 2016-02-24 08:14 EST (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
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: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Mikolaj Izdebski 2014-03-30 16:14:47 EDT
Description of problem:
Despite the fact that license tag states "GPLv2+", parts of Azureus are licensed under GPL v2 only:
  grep "version 2 of the License only" `find -name *.java`

Azureus links with a number of GPLv2-incompatible components:
  apache-commons-cli (ASL 2.0)
  apache-commons-lang (ASL 2.0)
  eclipse-swt (EPL)
  log4j (ASL 2.0)
  junit (CPL, build-time only)
  json_simple (ASL 2.0)

Azureus also bundles some code under CPL (classes in org.pf).

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
5.3.0.0-3
Comment 1 Sergio Monteiro Basto 2014-03-30 21:03:42 EDT
yeah 
on https://sourceforge.net/projects/azureus/ 
License is GNU General Public License version 2.0 (GPLv2).

So drop the "+" fix this bug ? 
Linked to a number of GPLv2-incompatible components, but all in Fedora repos and one Common Public License also accepted by Fedora [1], what we need to do ? 


[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses
Comment 2 Mikolaj Izdebski 2014-03-31 02:49:50 EDT
The main problem is that the libraries azureus links with are all under GPLv2-incompatible licenses.  For example GPL code cannot be linked with EPL code.  Fedora licensing page you linked confirms that.  For more information, see:
  http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE
  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
Comment 3 David Juran 2014-04-07 02:39:01 EDT
Hello.

Regarding the GPLv2+ tag, the '+' is probably a mistake on the behalf of the packager, for all I know, azureus is licensed for GPLv2 only, see http://wiki.vuze.com/w/Vuze_License.

Regarding linking with Eclipse SWT, The azureus project make an exception from the GPLv2 (also on http://wiki.vuze.com/w/Vuze_License) for this purpose. I don't claim I fully understand the details but would that make this linking acceptable and should the Licence tag then be "GPLv2 with exceptions"?

Regarding the rest, let me see what I can do...
Comment 4 Mikolaj Izdebski 2014-04-07 03:55:33 EDT
Thank you David for looking into this.

I agree with changing the license tag to "GPLv2" or "GPLv2 with exceptions".  In any case adding a comment to the spec file with the link to the wiki page would be nice.

The exception (if you can even call it this way) was to link with "EPL-licensed SWT" code only, but azureus also links with other components under EPL or CPL and with code under ASL 2.0 license, which is incompatible with GPLv2.
Comment 5 David Juran 2014-04-07 04:50:45 EDT
Yes, the EPL and CPL parts will need to be looked into/replaced. Reason I asked about SWT was that I don't think it's really feasible replacing this, so if the exception would not be sufficient, there would be little point putting effort into fixing the rest.
But I interpret #4 as SWT would be OK with the exception and I'll get started on the rest of the issues later during the week.
Comment 6 David Juran 2014-07-07 16:57:21 EDT
http://forum.vuze.com/thread.jspa?threadID=122409
Comment 7 David Juran 2014-07-08 12:06:11 EDT
Mikolaj, regarding the ProgrammersFriend library, it seems it was LGPL at the time it was bundled into Vuze.
 Could you have a look at the discussion on http://forum.vuze.com/thread.jspa?threadID=122409 if you agree with what is said there?
Comment 8 Mikolaj Izdebski 2014-07-08 12:24:41 EDT
Azureus bundles verison ProgrammersFriend 2.0, which is dated July 26, 2003.  Judging from the web archive links it seems that older versions of ProgrammersFriend (before 2005) were indeed under LGPL (any verison), so that's not a problem from legal point of view as GPL code can be linked with LGPL.

The problem of bundled code *could* be justified by upstream license change - it is not possible to legally link azureus with latest PF, hence bundling.  But FPC still needs to revisit the case and grant an exception.

Of course the problem of linking with other libraries remains.
Comment 9 David Juran 2014-07-23 16:19:01 EDT
Discussion in upstream project about what their actual licence is ongoing in http://forum-archive.vuze.com/thread.jspa?threadID=122409
Comment 10 Jaroslav Reznik 2015-03-03 10:38:51 EST
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 22 development cycle.
Changing version to '22'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora22
Comment 11 Jan Kurik 2016-02-24 08:14:38 EST
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 24 development cycle.
Changing version to '24'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora24#Rawhide_Rebase

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.