Bug 2323097 - Requesting clarification on the License of xrdp rpm.
Summary: Requesting clarification on the License of xrdp rpm.
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora EPEL
Classification: Fedora
Component: xrdp
Version: epel9
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
unspecified
low
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Bojan Smojver
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-11-01 02:12 UTC by dileep.gunda
Modified: 2024-11-01 22:21 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description dileep.gunda 2024-11-01 02:12:08 UTC
Description of problem:
Epel repository (https://rhel.pkgs.org/9/epel-x86_64/xrdp-0.10.1-1.el9.x86_64.rpm.html) mentions 3 licenses with AND condition between them - ASL 2.0 and GPLv2+ and MIT, but source code mentions only MIT license (https://github.com/neutrinolabs/xrdp). Can you please clarify if it is dual license with AND of them or just MIT license as mentioned in their Git repo? 

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
0.10.1

How reproducible:
N/A

Steps to Reproduce:
N/A

Actual results:
N/A

Expected results:
N/A

Additional info:
N/A

Comment 1 Bojan Smojver 2024-11-01 22:21:35 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.


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