#46 Licensing in Blitz 0.10


Hello, my name is Sergio and I'm in charge of the blitz package in Fedora. Congratulations for the release of the version 0.10. I'm trying to update the package in Fedora to this latest version.

Reviewing the changes I've found contradictory information regarding the license.

In README file, we read that Blitz is released under GPL or artistic license. From reading README alone, we don't know which version of the GPL Blitz is under.

In LEGAL, we read the same information, but the files containing the text of the licenses are different.

In LICENSE, we read that Blitz is under a Perl-like "artistic license", the BSD license or Lesser GPL version 3 or later. This file contains the text of artistic license also.

COPYING contains GPLv3, COPYING.LESSER contains some more terms that added to COPYING create LGPLv3. COPYRIGHT contains BSD license.

So, I think it is the intention of you, the authors, to release Blitz under three different licenses: LGPL version 3 or later, BSD or Perl artistic license.

I recommend to update or simplify the README, LEGAL and LICENSE files to show the current licensing of the package.

And a final suggestion; please consider migrate from "artistic license" to "artistic license 2.0". It is not clear if the former is a free software license, and in any case it is not accepted as a valid license in Fedora. More details in the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_License


  • Julian Cummings

    Julian Cummings - 2012-07-03

    Yes, the intention was to update to LGPL v3 as stated in the LICENSE file and to continue to allow the user the option of multiple licenses to work with blitz under, depending upon their needs. I apologize for the conflicting language in the README and LEGAL files. I will work to clean this up and also I will look at updating the artistic license to version 2.0. Thank you for letting me know about these issues.

  • Julian Cummings

    Julian Cummings - 2012-07-03
    • assigned_to: nobody --> julianc
    • status: open --> open-accepted
  • Julian Cummings

    Julian Cummings - 2012-07-04

    I have updated the contents of the LICENSE file to the Artistic License 2.0 and corrected the text in the README and LEGAL files to be consistent with this change.

  • Julian Cummings

    Julian Cummings - 2012-07-04
    • status: open-accepted --> closed-accepted

Log in to post a comment.

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

JavaScript is required for this form.

No, thanks