Bug 1268505 - Licensing issue in src/FSAL/FSAL_PT/fsal_attrs.c
Summary: Licensing issue in src/FSAL/FSAL_PT/fsal_attrs.c
Alias: None
Product: nfs-ganesha
Classification: Retired
Component: FSAL
Version: devel
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Frank Filz
QA Contact:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-Legal
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2015-10-02 23:56 UTC by Michael S.
Modified: 2015-10-09 18:07 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2015-10-09 18:07:13 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Michael S. 2015-10-02 23:56:26 UTC
It seems that package ship non free code, so should be removed:


Comment 1 Kaleb KEITHLEY 2015-10-05 16:48:53 UTC
The FSAL_PT is not built for Fedora, EPEL, or anything else.

Our resident license attorney has told me that if files with inappropriate (for Fedora) licenses aren't built into what we ship, e.g. .../os/freebsd/*, .../FSAL/FSAL_PT/*, then we (we being Red Hat, Fedora, CentOS) don't have anything to be concerned about.

If there are files that you have concerns about then feel free to open bugzillas for them at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=nfs-ganesha. You might also run it by us on the nfs-ganesha-devel mailing list at nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net or in #ganesha on freenode.

Comment 2 Tom "spot" Callaway 2015-10-06 13:32:13 UTC
We still distribute the source rpm, and since the license on that file only says "All Rights Reserved", we do not have permission to redistribute it (technically, neither does the Ganesha upstream).

Please just make a clean source tarball that does not include that file.

Comment 3 Richard Fontana 2015-10-06 17:52:40 UTC
Since I believe I was the resident license attorney in this case, I just wanted to clarify: We still need royalty-free permission to copy and distribute such non-built source files. 

It's not obvious to me that we don't have such permission here, though. I wouldn't conclude otherwise merely because "All rights reserved" is in the legal notice and merely because there is no license notice there.

Comment 4 Tom "spot" Callaway 2015-10-07 09:56:37 UTC
While I agree with Richard that it is likely that there is a license on this file, there is no clear indication that I have been able to find as to what that license is. The logical next step to resolve this upstream is to ask IBM to confirm the license terms on that file.

My proposal to remove the file from the source tarball was to resolve the issue in the short term for Fedora.

Comment 5 Kaleb KEITHLEY 2015-10-09 18:07:13 UTC
license is fixed in rc6.

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