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
Lua Logo license text (restricted modifications)
by Miro Hrončok
Hello. I try to package a software that shows the Lua logo in it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834280
The logo's license is:
Copyright © 1998 Lua.org. Graphic design by Alexandre Nakonechnyj.
Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without license or
royalty fees, to use, copy, and distribute this logo for any purpose, including
commercial applications, subject to the following conditions:
- The origin of this logo must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that
you drew the original logo.
- The only modification you can make is to adapt the orbiting text to your
product name.
- The logo can be used in any scale as long as the relative proportions of its
elements are maintained.
---end---
Clearly, this does not allow modifications, but do we have some exceptions for
branding? Or do I need to strip the logo out of the package?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
2 years, 6 months
Question about license of Geant4 and its datasets
by Qiyu Yan
I am planning to package Geant 4 for Fedora, but I noticed Geant4's
license is different from an usual one, which can be found here [1], I
don't know if this is acceptable, if so, can you please add this to
the 'Good License' list?
And this toolkit can be funicational only with a number of datasets,
mostly released by National Nuclear Data Center, I can't find any
license attached to those data files. National Nuclear Data Center
gives a term of use here [2] saying
> Users should feel free to use the information from NuDat 2 (tables and plots) in their work, reports, presentations, articles and books.
A general citations list of those datasets can be found here [3].
Seems that all of that data is royalty-free but instead of being
released as a part of a software, it is more likely to be released as
scientific papers. I think the term here [4] can apply here, but
unsure.
So I need help from the legal team to determine if this is acceptable.
[1]: https://github.com/Geant4/geant4/blob/master/LICENSE
[2]: https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat2/help/index.jsp
[3]: https://geant4.web.cern.ch/support/data_files_citations
[4]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging...
2 years, 9 months
Licensing Violation by iControlOne and ADT
by Rob Stitt
have the ADT Pulse security system (www.adt.com), which uses an iControlOne hub that is managed with software that is written and copyrighted by "iControlOne". The software itself says to go to "[http://www.icontrolone.com/]" to see open source license information.
When I go there and then click the link for the "Open Source Attributions" page, that brings up a list of software, licences, and whether or not they have modified the code.
One of the entries in the list is:
./external/elfutils http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:OSL1.1
Furthermore, the site says "Modified versions of open source software available upon request.", but they have ABSOLUTELY NO contact information nor any method listed to contact them.
With no way to actually make the request, their statement about "being available upon request" is nothing short of a fraudulent misstatement.
As such, this company is clearly violating the terms of the fedora license, as they provide no method for actually requesting such a copy of the software--and there is no visible way to even find any contact for the actual company itself.
Sincerely,
...Rob Stitt
rob(a)robstitt.com
2 years, 9 months
Packaging firmwares
by Robert-André Mauchin
Hello,
I have a review request for a firmware: Boot firmware (ATF, UEFI...) for
Mellanox BlueField:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1846139
I would like some opinions on whether this is acceptable firmware. The binary
contains open source code for which the license are documented, but no code
source is provided, only the resulting binary firmware.
Thanks for any help,
Robert-André
2 years, 9 months
Packaging exfatprogs for Fedora
by Vojtěch Trefný
Hi, I have a question about exFAT in Fedora. I would like to package
exfatprogs[1] (new userspace exFAT utilities from Samsung) for Fedora
but exFAT is still listed in the forbidden items[2]. I assume this was
not updated when Microsoft allowed including the exFAT driver in kernel
and exFAT should be allowed now. But I'm not a legal expert so it's
possible I'm missing something here. So my question is simple: can we
package exfatprogs for Fedora now or not? Thanks.
[1] https://github.com/exfatprogs/exfatprogs
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items
--
Vojtech Trefny
2 years, 10 months
