Analyzing the Relationship between the License of Packages and Their Files in Free and Open Source Software

  • Yuki Manabe
  • Daniel M. German
  • Katsuro Inoue
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 427)


Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is widely reused today. To reuse FOSS one must accept the conditions imposed by the software license under which the component is made available. This is complicated by the fact that often FOSS packages contain files from many licenses. In this paper we analyze the source code of packages in the Fedora Core Linux distribution with the goal of discovering the relationship between the license of a source package, and the license of the files it contains. For this purpose we create license inclusion graphs. Our results show that more modern reciprocal licenses such as the General Public License v3 tend to include files of less licenses than its previous versions, and that packages under an Apache License tend to contain only files under the same license.


Source Code Open Source Software Open Source Project Software License Open Source Software Project 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Inoue, K., Yokomori, R., Yamamoto, T., Matsushita, M., Kusumoto, S.: Ranking significance of software components based on use relations. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 31, 213–225 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Foundation, F.S.: Various licenses and comments about them,
  3. 3.
    Rosen, L.: Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law. Prentice Hall (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    German, D.M., Hassan, A.E.: License integration patterns: Addressing license mismatches in component-based development. In: Proc. ICSE 2009, pp. 188–198 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scacchi, W., Alspaugh, T.A.: Understanding the role of licenses and evolution in open architecture software ecosystems. Journal of Systems and Software 85(7), 1479–1494 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Open Source Initiative: Open source licenses,
  7. 7.
    Black Duck Software: Black duck knowledge base,
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Callaway, T.S.: Fedora: Software licenses (2013),
  10. 10.
    German, D.M., Manabe, Y., Inoue, K.: A sentence-matching method for automatic license identification of source code files. In: Proc. ASE 2010, pp. 437–446 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    German, D.M., Di Penta, M., Davies, J.: Understanding and auditing the licensing of open source software distributions. In: Proc. ICPC 2010, pp. 84–93 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stewart, K.J., Ammeter, A.P., Maruping, L.M.: Impacts of license choice and organizational sponsorship on user interest and development activity in open source software projects. Info. Sys. Research 17, 126–144 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alspaugh, T., Asuncion, H., Scacchi, W.: Intellectual property rights requirements for heterogeneously-licensed systems. In: Proc. RE 2009, pp. 24–33 (September 2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuki Manabe
    • 1
  • Daniel M. German
    • 2
    • 3
  • Katsuro Inoue
    • 3
  1. 1.Kumamoto UniversityJapan
  2. 2.University of VictoriaCanada
  3. 3.Osaka UniversityJapan

Personalised recommendations