License opinion required
by David Carter
Hi,
I'm packaging software with the following license on part of the code,
and I need to know if it's OK.
License Agreement for Application Response Measurement (ARM)
Version 4.0
Software Development Kit (SDK)
YOU MUST AGREE TO THESE TERMS BEFORE YOU DOWNLOAD OR USE THIS
PROGRAM.
ANY SUCH USE OR DOWNLOADING INDICATES YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE
TERMS.
Hewlett-Packard Corporation (HP) and tang-IT Consulting GmbH
(tang-IT)
grant you a license to use the ARM SDK. The ARM SDK is
copyrighted
and licensed (not sold). HP and tang-IT do not transfer
title to the ARM SDK to you. You obtain no rights other than
those
granted under this license.
Under this license, you may:
1. Use the ARM SDK on one or more machines at a time;
2. Make copies of the ARM SDK for use or backup purposes within
your enterprise;
3. Modify the ARM SDK and merge it into another
program; and
4. Make copies of the original file you download and
distribute it,
provided that you transfer a copy of this license
agreement to the
other party, and provided that the other party agrees to
all terms
of this license.
You must reproduce the copyright notice and any other legend of
ownership on each copy or partial copy of the ARM SDK. You may
NOT
sublicense, rent, lease, or assign the ARM SDK or any part of the
ARM SDK.
Except as expressly stated above, HP and tang-IT grant no other
licenses,
express or implied, by estoppel or otherwise, to any intellectual
property rights.
HP tang-IT do not warrant that the ARM SDK is free from claims
by any
party of copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, or any other
intellectual property infringement.
LIMITED LIABILITY
Under no circumstances are HP and tang-IT liable for any of the
following,
even if HP and tang-IT are informed of their possibility:
1. third party claims against you for losses or damages;
2. loss of, or damage to, your records or data; or
3. economic consequential damages (including lost
profits or
savings) or incremental damages.
4. punitive or non-compensatory damages of any sort
NO WARRANTIES
THIS PROGRAM IS PROVIDED "AS IS." HP AND tang-IT DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
HP and tang-IT do not warrant uninterrupted or error free
operation of the
SDK.
Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of implied
warranties or
limits on liability, so the above exclusions may not apply to you.
HP and tang-IT have no obligation to provide service, defect
correction,
or any maintenance for the SDK. HP and tang-IT have no
obligation to
supply any ARM SDK updates or enhancements to you even if such
are or
later become available.
You may terminate this license at any time. HP and tang-IT may
terminate
this license if you fail to comply with any of its terms. In
either
event, you must destroy all your copies of the ARM SDK.
You are responsible for the payment of any taxes resulting from
this
license.
You may not sell, transfer, assign, or subcontract any of your
rights
or obligations under this license. Any attempt to do so is void.
No licensee may bring a legal action more than two years after the
cause of action arose.
You hereby waive your right to a trial by jury and agree that any
action arising from the relationship of the parties to this
license
shall be decided by a court without a jury.
TIA,
Dave
15 years
e legal issue question
by Oguz Yarimtepe
Hi,
I need an information about the legal statement about using Fedora. My
company is an ODM and producing laptops. One of our customer is asked
the laptops Linux installed. There will not be any charge for the
operating system. I was checking the Fedora TradeMark GuideLines. I
haven't seems any restriction for selling laptops with Fedora installed.
But i want to get that info from the first hand.
After the installation, third party wlan and modem drivers will be
installed. Also will be installed a GPL application that shows on screen
display when the wireless is on and off from hotkeys.
So according to the TradeMark Policy indicating these software are not
provided and maintained by the Fedora Project and also applying the Logo
Usage Guidelines to the DVD itself will be fine.
Will be happy if you give information about this issue.
Regards,
Oğuz Yarımtepe
15 years
cc65 license
by Dan Horák
Hi,
can someone check the cc65 cross-compiler environment license at
http://www.cc65.org/#Copyright ? The second part related to libs and
utils is "zlib/libpng license", but I cannot decode the first part.
Thanks,
Dan
15 years
Licence of glew documentation ok now?
by Jochen Schmitt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hallo,
in the past the documentation of the glew package was removed because
it was licensed with a
non-redistributable license.
After I have filled a bug on upstreams bug tracking system the license
was changed. The new
license text is attached on the and of this mail.
Now I want to ask, it this ok for Fedora. From my point of view, it is.
Best Regards:
Jochen Schmitt
The OpenGL Extension Wrangler Library
Copyright (C) 2002-2008, Milan Ikits <milan ikits[]ieee org>
Copyright (C) 2002-2008, Marcelo E. Magallon <mmagallo[]debian org>
Copyright (C) 2002, Lev Povalahev
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* The name of the author may be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS"
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkkghzoACgkQT2AHK6txfgwQ2wCdFYU8Vb/d62EwIAG71I4dTNGT
2M8An1fcrRpHBJYVGvGkq1NYC7wbV0bd
=V/l9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
15 years
Mutual Termination for Patent Action on webmin
by Mamoru Tasaka
Hello.
I am trying to look at webmin review request (bug 468570)
because this is the second package the reporter (and my sponsornee)
submitted. Then:
webmin 1.430 has "PATENTS" file which contains:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mutual Termination for Patent Action. The License for the use of Webmin shall
terminate automatically and You may no longer exercise any of the rights granted
to You by this License if:
1. You file a lawsuit in any court alleging that any software that is licensed
under this license infringes any patent claims that are essential to use
that software.
2. You file a lawsuit in any court alleging that any OSI Certified open source
software that is licensed under any license containing a "Mutual Termination
for Patent Action" clause infringes any patent claims that are essential to use
that software.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Can we treat this as one of the "licenses"? If so, I would appreciate it
if this "license" is named if this is free and want to know if this is
compatible with GPLv3 (perhaps this is not compatible with GPLv2).
I guess this is very similar with what ASL 2.0 section 3 wants to say.
Also it seems that the section 2 of this "license" is the same as
the section 9 of OSI 1.0.
Note: for the review request itself, I would appreciate anyone's help.
Regards,
Mamoru
15 years, 1 month
Can I talk about RPM Fusion?
by Steven Moix
Hello fedora-legal people!
I'd like to know if I'm allowed to talk about RPM Fusion in a news I'm
going to send to the French press? We don't have software patents in
Europe, but I'm still not sure if it conflicts with some other guideline
or legal issue.
Thanks
Steven Moix
moixs(a)fedoraproject.org
15 years, 1 month
Re: Software is once again unpatentable in the United States
by Matthew Woehlke
Jon Ciesla wrote:
> Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Also from http://ben.klemens.org/blog/arch/00000009.htm:
>>> Despite claiming that all that matters is the
>>> machine-or-transformation test, the ruling also bears in mind many
>>> other necessary conditions for patentability, such as the rule that a
>>> patent may not �wholly pre-empt� a law of nature or principle or
>>> mathematical formula. Also, if you wholly pre-empt a mathematical
>>> algorithm within some narrow field of endeavor, the court rules that
>>> this is still a pre-emption. I'll have a little more on this below.
>> Note "a patent may not 'wholly pre-empt' ... a mathematical formula".
>>
>> ...which means all those codecs from livna/rpmfusion just became 100%
>> legal, no royalty required*.
>>
>> (* assuming the copyright license is not an issue, of course)
>
> I assume an "official" statement on this from Fedora/RedHat legal folk
> will be forthcoming.
>
> Unless it already has, and I missed it, which is entirely possible.
Jeff already pointed out RH's press release. As has been stated, the
Bilski decision does not paint the issue in black and white, and as
such, I don't expect *Red Hat* to decide that including e.g. lame in
Fedora is now okay.
Nevertheless, if the rule that math cannot be patented is upheld, I
think victory, at least for some areas that have historically caused
much friction (i.e. multimedia codecs) is inevitable. (And since other
areas fall more closely into "business methods", well... those patents
are in for rough times as well.)
And it's ammunition for non-paid "patented" codec users to say
(rightfully) that the patents they are allegedly violating are, in fact,
illegal.
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Igor Peshansky: Don't hippos love water even more than dogs?
Dave Korn: Don't ask me. I didn't even know that hippos loved dogs.
15 years, 1 month
Is the EUPL v1.0 (European Union Public Licence) acceptable in Fedora
by Caolán McNamara
Here's one I hadn't be aware of before, the EUPL, European Union Public
Licence: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl which affects something I was
considering packaging. It does have in it an explicit ...
Compatibility clause: If the Licensee Distributes ... derivative
Works ... this Distribution ... can be done under the terms of
this Compatible Licence.
“Compatible Licences” according to article 5 EUPL are:
− General Public License (GPL) v. 2
− Open Software License (OSL) v. 2.1, v. 3.0
− Common Public License v. 1.0
− Eclipse Public License v. 1.0
− Cecill v. 2.0
C.
15 years, 1 month
