On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 5:15 PM Pamela Chestek <pchestek(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Curious why the absence of any kind of license grant isn't a non-starter ...
Oh yes, that too :-)
I'm not completely sure if this page applies to the toolkit:
https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/naif/rules.html
But I might read it as indicating that NASA is informally granting a
very broad "SunRPC-style" license. In particular:
"Simple redistribution of the complete Toolkit, such as from a mirror
site, is prohibited without prior clearance from NAIF. However,
including the SPICE Toolkit library modules and relevant SPICE Toolkit
programs and allied User Guides as part of a package supporting a
customer-built SPICE-based tool is entirely appropriate."
The SunRPC restriction by itself would make the terms non-FOSS.
Richard
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 4:19 PM Richard Fontana
<rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 2:38 PM Mattia Verga
> <mattia.verga(a)protonmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The libpasastro package is going to bundle the NAIF/Spice toolkit from Jet
Propulsion Laboratory.
> > The source code seems to be publicly available, no license file is included with
the code, but in the headers there's this license text:
> >
> > THIS SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS WERE CREATED BY THE
> > CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (CALTECH) UNDER A U.S.
> > GOVERNMENT CONTRACT WITH THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
> > ADMINISTRATION (NASA). THE SOFTWARE IS TECHNOLOGY AND SOFTWARE
> > PUBLICLY AVAILABLE UNDER U.S. EXPORT LAWS AND IS PROVIDED "AS-IS"
> > TO THE RECIPIENT WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ANY
> > WARRANTIES OF PERFORMANCE OR MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
> > PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE (AS SET FORTH IN UNITED STATES UCC
> > SECTIONS 2312-2313) OR FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER, FOR THE
> > SOFTWARE AND RELATED MATERIALS, HOWEVER USED.
> >
> > IN NO EVENT SHALL CALTECH, ITS JET PROPULSION LABORATORY, OR NASA
> > BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES AND/OR COSTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
> > LIMITED TO, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND,
> > INCLUDING ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR INJURY TO PROPERTY AND LOST PROFITS,
> > REGARDLESS OF WHETHER CALTECH, JPL, OR NASA BE ADVISED, HAVE
> > REASON TO KNOW, OR, IN FACT, SHALL KNOW OF THE POSSIBILITY.
> >
> > RECIPIENT BEARS ALL RISK RELATING TO QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF
> > THE SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS, AND AGREES TO INDEMNIFY
> > CALTECH AND NASA FOR ALL THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS RESULTING FROM THE
> > ACTIONS OF RECIPIENT IN THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE.
> >
> > Is this license acceptable for inclusion in Fedora? I have a doubt about the
part "PUBLICLY AVAILABLE UNDER U.S. EXPORT LAWS"...
>
> My concern would be the "agree to indemnify" clause at the end.
> Historically, Fedora has rejected several FOSS-like licenses because
> of overbroad requirements to indemnify upstream licensors (there are
> narrower ones in certain commonly-encountered FOSS licenses -- Apache
> License 2.0, various versions of the MPL, and IIRC various members of
> the EPL family -- that are treated as acceptable, if only because
> they've been grandparented in).
>
> I'm open to being convinced that arbitrary indemnification obligations
> should be acceptable in FOSS licenses, but I'm not aware that anyone
> has yet made that argument.
>
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
924560232781635784812612