Henry Spencer's license
by Petr Šabata
Dear legal,
While checking the contents of our `perl' package, I noticed the following:
(...)
/* NOTE: this is derived from Henry Spencer's regexp code, and should not
* confused with the original package (see point 3 below). Thanks, Henry!
*/
/* Additional note: this code is very heavily munged from Henry's version
* in places. In some spots I've traded clarity for efficiency, so don't
* blame Henry for some of the lack of readability.
*/
/* The names of the functions have been changed from regcomp and
* regexec to pregcomp and pregexec in order to avoid conflicts
* with the POSIX routines of the same names.
*/
(...)
* pregcomp and pregexec -- regsub and regerror are not used in perl
*
* Copyright (c) 1986 by University of Toronto.
* Written by Henry Spencer. Not derived from licensed software.
*
* Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any
* purpose on any computer system, and to redistribute it freely,
* subject to the following restrictions:
*
* 1. The author is not responsible for the consequences of use of
* this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise
* from defects in it.
*
* 2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either
* by explicit claim or by omission.
*
* 3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not
* be misrepresented as being the original software.
*
**** Alterations to Henry's code are...
****
**** Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
**** 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
**** by Larry Wall and others
****
**** You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
**** License or the Artistic License, as specified in the README file.
(...)
You can see the whole file here:
https://metacpan.org/source/SHAY/perl-5.20.1/regexec.c
I looked but couldn't find any common name for this license
of Henry's. Is it on our list? Is it free? What name should
I use in the License tag?
Thank you,
Petr
3 weeks, 5 days
Patent question for davs2 - An open-source decoder of AVS2-P2/IEEE1857.4 video coding
by Robert-André Mauchin
Hello,
Could we have legal opinion regarding:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1718540#c4
According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Video_Standard
this standard is patented:
AVS Patent Pool Management Committee
In the aspect of intellectual property management, AVS established a "Patent
Pool" management mechanism, with the management and authorization of the
patent pool in charge of “AVS Patent Pool Management Committee”, an
independent corporate association founded in September 20, 2004. The committee
is also the first "Patent Pool" management institution in China. Relying on the
independent corporate association “Beijing Haidian District Digital Audio and
Video Standard Promotion Center” registered in the Civil Affairs Bureau of
Haidian District of Beijing City, it set up one-stop, low-cost patent
authorization principles and management rules [4] for patent technologies
included in the standard, as the expert committee and the main business
decision-making institution of the promotion center. The royalty for the first
generation AVS standard is only charged one-yuan per terminal, and the same
mode will be adopted for the second generation, to charge a small amount of
royalty only for the terminal, excluding the contents, as well as software
services on the Internet.
Best regards,
Robert-André
3 years, 7 months
Specifically approved license for Copr: Netperf
by Pavel Raiskup
Dear legal team,
I recently had to remove some nontrivial work on Netperf package, done by
several users of Fedora Copr build system - because any material uploaded to
Copr must comply with Fedora licensing guidelines nowadays.
I'm curious whether we could have a list of licenses specifically approved for
Fedora Copr, on top of fedora licensing guidelines, such as is sketched in [2].
Speaking about the concrete license [1], GitHub is allowed to distribute the
sources without issues, and if user wants to package this against Fedora -
there's currently no option.
Note though that I don't advocate the restrictive license in any way, it
is bad license in my opinion. Though at the same time it is pity that
copr can not be an answer to this problem (builds of non-commercial only
software), and so I'd like to have it explicitly discussed.
[1] https://github.com/HewlettPackard/netperf/blob/master/COPYING
[2] https://pagure.io/copr/copr/pull-request/855#request_diff
Pavel
3 years, 8 months
