{"id":"EFL-1.0","title":"Eiffel Forum License v1.0","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/spdx/license-list-data/main/text/EFL-1.0.txt","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"created","summary":"The record models version 1 of the Eiffel Forum License. Use, copying, modification and distribution are permitted provided the copyright notices stay unchanged and the license file travels with every distribution. Distributing a binary that depends on a modified version of the package obliges the distributor to release that modified version publicly, which the record carries as a cc:SourceCode duty on modify and derive. Version 2 drops that obligation, which is the whole difference between the two records.","findings":[{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"\"Permission is hereby granted to use, copy, modify and/or distribute this package, provided that: - copyright notices are retained unchanged - any distribution of this package, whether modified or not, includes this file.\" The record permits reproduce, distribute, modify, derive, display, present, commercial use, derivative works, modified works and the distribution fee.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:duty","description":"cc:Attribution from the unchanged copyright notices and cc:Notice from the requirement to include the license file, both on distribute, modify and derive. cc:SourceCode on modify and derive comes from the second grant: \"if the binary program depends on a modified version of this package, you must publicly release the modified version of this package.\"","action":"applied"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited because the text requires the license itself to travel with every copy, which is the reading IscLicense and BSD-3-Clause take of the same clause. The MIT record does not carry the prohibition although its text has the same requirement, so the library is not uniform here.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:duty","description":"The review group notes expected a dalicc:modificationNotice duty and a dalicc:rename duty on this record. The fetched text has neither: it asks for unchanged copyright notices, the license file and, for a binary that depends on a modified package, the public release of that package. The record follows the text.","action":"none"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"minor","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"The second grant, about binary programs that depend on the package, is quoted verbatim, because the cc:SourceCode duty does not say that the trigger is a dependent binary rather than a redistribution of the package itself.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"info","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"The text names no legal system and no term, so cc:jurisdiction is dalicc:worldwide and dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual.","action":"none"},{"rubric":2,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:target","description":"One odrl:AssetCollection of dct:type dcmitype:Software, following MIT. The text licenses a package of software.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":9,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The consistency check with the axioms of dg_default returned no conflicts.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"dalicc:variantKind is version, with EFL-2.0 as the other member of the chain. No parent is named, in the way 0BSD and BSD-3-Clause name none.","action":"none"}],"family":"Permissive: MIT, ISC and BSD-like","port_of":null,"variant_kind":"version","notes":"Modelled from the SPDX plain text. The record and EFL-2.0 were written together and differ in exactly one duty; see the rubric 10 finding of EFL-2.0."}