Licensing main – fedora project wiki

In addition, all acceptable licenses for Fedora (including copyright, trademark, and patent licenses) must be applicable not only to Red Hat or Fedora, but also to all recipients downstream. This means that any "Fedora-only" licenses, or licenses with specific terms that Red Hat or Fedora meets but that other recipients would not are not acceptable (and almost certainly non-free, as a result).

• Emulators which depend on firmware or ROM files to function may not be included in Fedora, unless the copyright holder(s) for the firmware/ROM files give clear permission for the firmware/ROM files to be distributed (either under a Fedora permissible license or under the Fedora firmware exception criteria).

Note: This only covers the situation where an emulator will not run at all without firmware/ROM files. For example, emulators that compile and run, but ship with no game ROMs are not covered by this rule.

Whenever possible, ROMS implementing BIOS or Firmware for QEMU system targets must be built from source on the intended architecture. However, in many situations, this is not practical or possible. As a special exception for those situations where it is not practical or possible, prebuilt binary ROMS implementing BIOS or Firmware for QEMU system targets may be included in Fedora Packages, as long as the corresponding source code is also included in the Source RPM package.

A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it’s licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file they include. And if they manage to grant the Classpath exception without specifying a version, you get this strange beast.

A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it’s licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file they include. And if they manage to grant the font embedding exception without specifying a version, you get this strange beast.

A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it’s licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file they include. Note that this is LGPLv2+, not LGPL+, because version 2 was the first version of LGPL. Note that this license was originally referred to as the GNU Library General Public License v2, but all current versions (v2.1 or newer) of the license are correctly known as the GNU Lesser General Public License.

Note A: The GNU General Public License can be used for general data which is not software, as long as one can determine what the definition of “source code” refers to in the particular case. In English, it means that you can use the GPL for documentation, but it is not necessarily a good choice, unless you are able to define what "source code" means for your documentation. Also, if you use this license, use the appropriate versioning short names as described in the Software License section.

Here is a list of Content Licenses that are OK for Fedora. If your license is not in this list, and you’d like to know if it is appropriate for Fedora, please email the details to legal@lists.fedoraproject.org (note that this list is moderated, only members may directly post). Note that content must be freely distributable without restriction for inclusion in Fedora, and that a written statement from the content owner granting this is considered an approved license for Fedora. The one exception is that we permit content (but only content) which restricts modification as long as that is the only restriction.

Note A: The GNU General Public License can be used for general data which is not software, as long as one can determine what the definition of “source code” refers to in the particular case. In English, it means that you can use the GPL for content, but it is not necessarily a good choice, unless you are able to define what "source code" means for your content. Also, if you use this license, use the appropriate versioning short names as described in the Software License section.