License clarification: BSD-3-Clause, GPL-2.0, both, or?

[knight-of-ni]

My apologies for what might seem like nitpicking, but this is what I have to deal with when trying to add a new package to Fedora repos.

This github project mentions BSD-3-Clause, but there are several references to GPL-2.0:
https://github.com/msteinert/bstring/blob/main/bstring/bstraux.c#L31
https://github.com/msteinert/bstring/blob/main/bstring/bstraux.h#L31
https://github.com/msteinert/bstring/blob/main/bstring/bstrlib.c#L31
https://github.com/msteinert/bstring/blob/main/bstring/bstrlib.h#L31
https://github.com/msteinert/bstring/blob/main/doc/introduction.md#license

Can upstream please clarify whether this project is exclusively BSD-3-Clause, both that and GPL-2.0, or something different. I am fine either way, but I'd like to represent the license correctly in Fedora. Thank you.

[rdmark]

If you look at the parent project, the original author Paul Hsieh put this in his readme, which should shine some light on the author's intention:

License

The Better String Library is available under either the BSD license (see the
accompanying license.txt) or the Gnu Public License version 2 (see the
accompanying gpl.txt) at the option of the user.

For reference, here is how Debian interpreted the licensing terms (as vendored in netatalk) when looking at another source:

Files:
 include/atalk/bstrlib.h
 libatalk/bstring/bstrlib.c
Copyright:
  2002-2008  Paul Hsieh <http://www.pobox.com/~qed/>
License-Grant:
 This source file is part of the bstring string library.
 This code was written by Paul Hsieh in 2002-2008,
 and is covered by the BSD open source license and the GPL.
 Refer to the accompanying documentation
 for details on usage and license.
License: BSD-3-Clause~bstrlib or GPL-2
Reference: libatalk/bstring/LICENSE
Comment:
 The file apparently a code copy of Better String Library
 located at <http://bstring.cvs.sourceforge.net/>
 where referenced 'BSD' license is BSD-3-Clause
 and referenced 'GPL' license is GPL-2.
 .
 At <http://bstring.sourceforge.net/bstrFAQ.shtml>
 is mentioned that "It is dual licensed
 under both the BSD license and the GNU public license.
 This means it can be used on any project and with any vendor
 without serious issue."
 That is assumed to mean that _either_ license apply (not both).

IANAL but Paul consistently emphasizes that you can choose which license should apply, and that his intention for dual-licensing was so the library can be used as broadly as possible.

Does this help in positioning the Fedora package metadata?

[knight-of-ni]

Thanks for the response, and I think that will suffice. I await further feedback from the review process.

[knight-of-ni]

Good news. Fedora package review of bstring project has passed, on the contingency I include the contents of pr #120. Since that PR has not been merged yet, I'll let upstream decide when this issue should be closed.

[rdmark]

great news, I'm pleased that it passed the Fedora gatekeepers' scrutiny!

here is my proposed PR to address the dual licensing question: #121

I think from a packaging metadata perspective, this doesn't change anything compared to the other PR. But I wanted to make sure both Paul's and Mike's intentions were captured adequately (in my interpretation.)