Xerox license
by Mamoru Tasaka
Hello.
Now I am reviewing synopsis [1].
Some of the files in synopsis uses Xerox license as below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1995, 1996 Xerox Corporation.
All Rights Reserved.
Use and copying of this software and preparation of derivative works
based upon this software are permitted. Any copy of this software or
of any derivative work must include the above copyright notice of
Xerox Corporation, this paragraph and the one after it. Any
distribution of this software or derivative works must comply with all
applicable United States export control laws.
This software is made available AS IS, and XEROX CORPORATION DISCLAIMS
ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION CONTAINED HEREIN, ANY
LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE SOFTWARE OR ITS USE IS
EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED, WHETHER ARISING IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE) OR STRICT LIABILITY, EVEN IF XEROX CORPORATION IS ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This seems MIT-ish, however I wonder if the terms of "compliance with
US laws" make this license GPL incompatible.
For synopsis, if this is LGPLv2+ compatible it is okay.
So would you tell me if
- this is enough Free for Fedora
- this is LGPL/GPL compatible
If this is GPL incompatible, I would appreciate it if this license is named
and added to Fedora legal wiki page.
Regards,
Mamoru
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438543
15 years, 11 months
What license it is?
by Pavel Shevchuk
I want to submit spec for eet, but don't know what license it is.
Developers call it old-style BSD, but for me it looks closer to MIT
feh variant. Also, it's very close to license used for e16 components
which is named "MIT with advertising" on fedora licensing page. What
to write in "License" field of spec? Thanks in advance
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#feh
COPYING file from source tarball:
Copyright (C) 2000 Carsten Haitzler and various contributors (see AUTHORS)
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to
deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the
rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies of the Software and its Copyright notices. In addition publicly
documented acknowledgment must be given that this software has been used if no
source code of this software is made available publicly. This includes
acknowledgments in either Copyright notices, Manuals, Publicity and Marketing
documents or any documentation provided with any product containing this
software. This License does not apply to any software that links to the
libraries provided by this software (statically or dynamically), but only to
the software provided.
Please see the COPYING.PLAIN for a plain-english explanation of this notice
and it's intent.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER
IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
--
http://scwlab.com
16 years
EULA -> License Agreement
by Paul W. Frields
Richard Fontana sent me an interesting note that I hadn't had time to
follow up 'til now. It concerns whether Fedora should prefer the use of
the term "License Agreement" over "EULA," the latter of which he felt
sounded too much like a proprietary software-ism. And if you think
about it, he's right -- what does "end user" mean when any user can
potentially redistribute? There *IS* no theoretical end to a Fedora
supply chain.
I've cc'd him here in case he wants to comment further.
I'd like to move/rename the wiki page at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA
to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/LicenseAgreement
and similarly with the other pages.
Fixing the link in firstboot would require fixing all the PO strings as
well -- but because the content doesn't change, that's a trivial elbow
grease exercise. I'll bring that to Mr. Lumens, along with an offer to
make the changes, provided (1) people agree with the change, (2) Chris
is in agreement, and (3) we get a rel-eng buy-in for this trivial
change.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
16 years
Possible new CLA
by Paul W. Frields
There is a draft of a new CLA being circulated at FreeIPA:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/2008-April/msg00052.html
http://www.freeipa.org/wiki/images/2/2b/GenericCLA.pdf
I've asked Legal for a summary of what's changed and why, and an answer
to whether all Fedora contributors would need to re-execute this
agreement. (I'm betting the answer to the last question is "yes," but
that's just an educated guess.) I believe the changes to be minor,
mainly to eliminate loopholes and to make this process less onerous in
the future, but I'll wait for more information.
Ricky Zhou tells me that our CLA signing information is kept in the form
of a log table, not a simple date field. AIUI then, we have the ability
to find out what CLAs have been executed over the life of an account.
If I'm correct about that, I want to say first, thanks for a really good
design. :-)
Second, since a new CLA is a possibility -- I just want to confirm that
we are not *overwriting* old CLA data, i.e. we would maintain a history
that user "johndoe" signed a CLA on 2007-10-15 and then again on
2008-04-28.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
16 years
