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
2 months, 3 weeks
The right license for logos and trademarks in a free software project
by Sheogorath
Hello,
first of, this might not be the right mailing list, so feel free to
redirect me or answer directly instead of to the list.
I came to you, to ask about the right way to license a logo and Name
properly as part of a free software project. We, the Project
Hedgedoc[1] (formally known as CodiMD), are currently working on
rebranding the whole thing to solve some name conflicts. As part of
this we just created a new logo, came up with the name, etc. and we
were wondering what's the right license for those works. GNU and the
free software foundation, as well as OSI have guides for Source code,
documentation and alike, but I couldn't find any resources on things
like Logos and Names.
I know Fedora and the Fedora logo is owned by RedHat, and I'm quite
sure for other project exist similar constructs, but I'm not really
aware how this is set up. Any recommendations or guidance is very
welcome and I would love to hear back from you.
[1]: https://github.com/codimd/server
--
Signed
Sheogorath
PS: Yes, this is not closely Fedora related, but I really didn't come
up with a better place to ask.
OpenPGP: https://shivering-isles.com/openpgp/0xFCB98C2A3EC6F601.txt
2 years, 8 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
2 years, 8 months
HaXml LGPLv2 exceptions
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen
Hi Fedora Legal list,
I am trying to package HaXml <https://hackage.haskell.org/package/HaXml>
for Fedora.
Its library is distributed with the LGPL 2.1 license, with an exception
in a COPYRIGHT file:
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/HaXml-1.25.5/src/COPYRIGHT
"""
As a relaxation of clause 6 of the LGPL, the copyright holders of this
library give permission to use, copy, link, modify, and distribute,
binary-only object-code versions of an executable linked with the
original unmodified Library, without requiring the supply of any
mechanism to modify or replace the Library and relink (clauses 6a,
6b, 6c, 6d, 6e), provided that all the other terms of clause 6 are
complied with.
"""
It also includes some tools which are distributed with the GPL 2 license.
So I'd like to ask for approval for the above exception to make it "LGPLv2
with exceptions".
Not sure if that prevents "LGPLv2+ with exceptions"?
Thank you,
Jens
2 years, 8 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
2 years, 8 months
