Unicode licensing of finl_unicode
by Cristian Le
Hi legal team,
I am trying to package finl_unicode [1][2], but we are having some
issues with the ambiguous Copyright notice stating that it is licensed
under Unicode license with "All rights reserved". The project uses
generated source code and it is a bit unclear what license these belong
to and what part of the code carries the Unicode license. We are trying
to ask for clarification if some of the code is actually
"Unicode-DFS-2016" licensed, and we are waiting for their reply.
So far we have made 2 PRs [3][4] that can side-step the obvious files
that are under the Unicode license, but we need advice on whether those
are sufficient or do we need to wait for more explicit confirmation form
upstream?
[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279514
[2]: https://github.com/dahosek/finl_unicode
[3]: https://github.com/dahosek/finl_unicode/pull/17
[4]: https://github.com/dahosek/finl_unicode/pull/19
1 week
- 1
- 0
License for Sublime Text language definitions for syntax highlighting
by Fabio Valentini
Hi all,
I noticed that there are some packages that bundle data from Sublime
Text, notably data for how to apply syntax highlighting for various
programming languages. The license that applies to this data is in
this file:
https://github.com/sublimehq/Packages/blob/759d6eed9b4beed87e602a23303a12...
(Yes, in one case that I'm looking at, the bundled data is a 5 years
old snapshot. Apparently only the Sublime Text v3 format is supported
by syntect.)
The contents of this LICENSE file are very short, so I'll just include
it verbatim for convenience:
```
If not otherwise specified (see below), files in this repository fall
under the following license:
Permission to copy, use, modify, sell and distribute this
software is granted. This software is provided "as is" without
express or implied warranty, and with no claim as to its
suitability for any purpose.
An exception is made for files in readable text which contain their
own license information, or files where an accompanying file exists
(in the same directory) with a “-license” suffix added to the
base-name name of the original file, and an extension of txt, html, or
similar. For example “tidy” is accompanied by “tidy-license.txt”.
```
I could not find any SPDX license that matches this text. It looks
very permissive to me, so it should be acceptable for content, but I
would need to know how to classify it - both for existing packages
where this was missed during package review, as well for a new package
for a library that I need to package in order to be able to update an
existing package to the latest version.
Fabio
1 week, 6 days
- 1
- 0
- ← Newer
- 1
- Older →