MMIX is the successor to Donald Knuth's MIX machine in later editions of
The Art of Computer Programming. The canonical software implementation
is made available with the following license:
While the wording is different from the same author's license on TeX
(approved as the "Knuth license"), the intent appears to be the same.
Is this acceptable for Fedora, and what name should be used?
Associate Software Engineer, ARM
Red Hat, Inc.
I have a doubt about the "free for non commercial use" license.
Let's say a software licensed under a Fedora good license uses data from a catalog (directly or indirectly - e.g. to create a custom catalog format) that is licensed "free for non commercial use".
A good example for astronomy programs would be the NGC catalog from
or, in my actual case,
I'm now packaging "astrometry" for Fedora and I actually removed that catalog from sources.
What's the limit of the "free for non commercial use" statement? In this case can the catalog be maintained in sources? If the software is under a free license there's no "commercial use" involved, in my opinion.
The cjdns package - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268716
- is GPLv3, with some stuff BSD, MIT, and ISC. I delete GPLv2 and ASL
2.0 stuff in %prep.
There is one file, bencode.js, with a custom license:
/* Copyright (c) 2009 Anton Ekblad
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
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,
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
all copies or substantial portions of the Software. */
IANAL, but it seems like BSD to me. But I was advised to ask
legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org when in doubt.
Marek Goldmann wrote:
> Most probably we'll need to package OSGi Enterprise, but I'm not sure
> about licensing of this project.
> The code itself (included in the.jar file, another story...) is ASL 2.0,
> but if you try to download it from the website, you need to agree to this:
> Which is no more, no less OSGi Specification License, listed as bad
> license on the wiki:
> You can also download it directly, without the need to agree to the
> license on the website:
> How should we deal with it? Are we authorized to package it under ASL 2.0?
Hi, I am unable to find any response to this message in mail archives.
The Y2016 update:
* How have we dealt with this?
* Are we OK to package the osgi.enterprise now?
* Do we depend on osgi.enterprise namespace somewhere
* if that is not Fedora friendly license, is it OK to depend on it