6:33 a.m.
Dear SystemC-forum and developers,
Before I explain what the problem with Systemc's license is , let me
first introduce my intentions.
I am a community member of Fedora project.
https://fedoraproject.org/
My contribution to this _non profit_ organisation is to make the
deployment of opensource EDA tools easier, under the Fedora Electronic
Lab umbrella.
http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/FEL
We are not in competition with other EDA vendors.
Thereby I was packaging SystemC for Fedora. However, after consulting
Red Hat Lawyers, Systemc's license is not valid to include it into
Fedora's repositories.
There is a third-party repository for fedora (not supported by the
fedora project) : rpmfusion which deals with such licensing issues.
http://rpmfusion.org/
I have spent many days trying to fix SystemC for gcc4, use dynamic
libraries instead of static, ... etc.
But the contributors behind the non-profit rpmfusion and I are worried
about the distribution of Systemc.
We have been in contact with Red Hat Lawyers to give us some advice on
this matter. You will find below their recommendations. With this
email, I am asking SystemC developers to please modify SystemC license
in such a way that it makes distribution easier.
Recently, Cadence and Mentors announced OVM is available under the
Apache 2 license. Can Synopsys do the same with SystemC ? or at least
a license which facilitates distribution.
You will have all my work done (patches) on integrating SystemC in
Fedora/Red Hat based linux operating systems. If SystemC's license is
updated as I wish, I will work with SELinux developers to fix the
memory flags that SELinux is blocking.
My request in this email is to facilitate the tasks of everyone :-
- me as a non-profit distributor
- any fedora user will have SystemC well integrated in the linux
distribution and he/she doesn't have to spend days compiling Systemc.
- SystemC developers will have all my patches.
However, if Systemc's developers reject my request, I will not
distribute Systemc and abide to the legal terms.
Below are some recommendations to update SystemC's license:
This is specifically commenting on the current version 3.0 of the
SystemC license.
http://www.systemc.org/about/org_docs/license/
The most significant problem is section 2.7, concerning trademarks. I
would suggest both of the following:
(a) Eliminating 2.7 in its entirety. Trademark issues are dealt with
adequately in section 2.5. However, another (redundant) possibility is
to replace the existing 2.7 in its entirety with one sentence:
This Agreement grants no permission to use the marks or logos of OSCI.
(b) Sever Exhibit D completely from the license.
There are other issues that might not rise to the level of
non-free-ness but have been pointed out by the FSF as being
problematic (and in some cases clarification of meaning or purpose
would lead to the conclusion that the clauses in question make the
license non-free). The following suggestions would address these:
(a) Eliminate the following:
PLEASE READ THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE CLICKING ON THE
"ACCEPT" BUTTON, AS BY CLICKING ON THE "ACCEPT" BUTTON YOU
ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT YOU HAVE READ, UNDERSTOOD AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THIS LICENSE
AGREEMENT AND ALL OF ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
(Note that there's other language that deals with acceptance below this
language.)
(b) In section 2.6, replace the term "proprietary notices" with "legal
notices".
(c) Replace section 5 with the following:
Any Recipient which Distributes any Contribution and/or OSCI Release
in a commercial offering (a "Commercial Distributor") may accept
certain responsibilities with respect to end users, business
partners and the like. While this license is intended to facilitate
the commercial use of Contributions and OSCI Releases, a Commercial
Distributor should do so in a manner which does not create
potential liability for the Contributors. Therefore, each
Commercial Distributor hereby agrees to defend and indemnify every
Contributor ("Indemnified Contributor") against any losses,
damages and costs (collectively "Losses") arising from claims,
lawsuits and other legal actions brought by a third party against the
Indemnified Contributor to the extent they directly result from the
acts or omissions of such Commercial Distributor in connection with
the terms and conditions under which the Commercial Distributor offered
such Contributions and OSCI releases in a commercial product
offering. The obligations in this Section 5 do not apply to any
claims or Losses relating to any actual or alleged intellectual
property infringement. In order to qualify, an Indemnified
Contributor must: a) promptly notify the Commercial
Distributor in writing of such claim, and b) allow the
Commercial Distributor to control, and cooperate with the Commercial
Distributor in, the defense and any related settlement negotiations.
The Indemnified Contributor may participate in the defense of any such
claim at its own expense.
For example, a Recipient might include a Contribution in a commercial
product offering, Product X. That Contributor is then a Commercial
Distributor. If that Commercial Distributor then makes performance
claims, or offers warranties, support or indemnity related to
Product X, those performance claims, offers and other terms
are such Commercial Distributor's responsibility
alone. Under this Section 5, the Commercial Distributor would have to
defend claims against the Contributors directly arising out of those
performance claims, offers, and other terms, and if a court requires
any Contributor to pay any damages as a result, the Commercial
Distributor must pay those damages.
Alternatively, and preferably, eliminate section 5 altogether.
Kind regards,
Chitlesh