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
9 months
How to name the license in the spec
by Jaroslav Skarvada
Hi,
the code contains the following text:
* <db(a)FreeBSD.ORG> wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you
* can do whatever you want with this code, except you may not
* license it under any form of the GPL.
* A postcard or QSL card showing me you appreciate
* this code would be nice. Diane Bruce va3db
How to name such license in the spec?
thanks & regards
Jaroslav
3 years, 2 months
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
3 years, 2 months
NTP license
by Andy Mender
Hello,
I'm currently reviewing a package which contains a couple of files with an
explicit license notice matching the NTP license:
https://opensource.org/licenses/NTP
A snippet from licensecheck:
xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/XlcPubI.h: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/XlcPublic.h: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcCT.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcCharSet.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcUTF8.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
The problem is that the NTP license is not listed in the licensing
guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Software_Licen...
How should I proceed?
Best,
Andy
3 years, 3 months
CNEWS license
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen
Hello,
I am trying to package¹ editline <https://troglobit.com/projects/editline/>²
for Fedora,
which has an unusual license
<https://github.com/troglobit/editline/blob/master/LICENSE> that
originating from cnews:
https://www.openhub.net/licenses/cnews.
Let me quote the full license text below too for completeness.
Can this be considered a BSD-ish or similar license?
Or does it need a new Fedora license tag (CNEWS?)?
Thank you, Jens
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867290
Copyright 1992,1993 Simmule Turner and Rich Salz
All rights reserved.
This software is not subject to any license of the American Telephone
and Telegraph Company or of the Regents of the University of California.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose on
any computer system, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject
to the following restrictions:
1. The authors are not responsible for the consequences of use of this
software, no matter how awful, even if they arise from flaws in it.
2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either by
explicit claim or by omission. Since few users ever read sources,
credits must appear in the documentation.
3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
misrepresented as being the original software. Since few users
ever read sources, credits must appear in the documentation.
4. This notice may not be removed or altered.
3 years, 3 months
QPL with exception
by Jerry James
As long as we are reviewing exceptions to licenses, I would like to
ask about the Frama-C license (http://frama-c.com/). Parts of the
code are covered by the QPL. In the source distribution, the file
licenses/Q_MODIFIED_LICENSE says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Generator is distributed under the terms of the Q Public License
version 1.0 with a change to choice of law (included below).
[snip]
As a special exception to the Q Public License, you may develop
application programs, reusable components and other software items
that link with the original or modified versions of the Generator
and are not made available to the general public, without any of the
additional requirements listed in clause 6c of the Q Public license.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the entirety of clause 6:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following
requirements:
a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable
forms of these items are also able to receive and use the
complete machine-readable source code to the items without any
charge beyond the costs of data transfer.
b. You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to
use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the
items in both machine-executable and source code forms. The
recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever,
and they must be able to re-distribute to anyone they choose.
c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
then you must supply one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that exception worth noting in the License field? Thank you,
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
3 years, 4 months
