I have a question about a copyright header on a file that looks dubious to
me, but I wanted to get an opinion from here.
https://github.com/alberthdev/spasm-ng/blob/master/inc/ti83plus.inc is the
file in question; it's an z80 assembly include written for the TI-83+, a
graphing calculator made by Texas Instruments. The file was originally
written by TI and made freely available, but it includes the following
; Include File for the TI-83 Plus
; Last Updated 11/09/2001
; Copyright (c) 1999, 2001 Texas Instruments: The Licensed Materials are
; copyrighted by TI. LICENSEE agrees that it will
; not delete the copyright notice, trademarks or
; protective notices from any copy made by LICENSEE.
; Warranty: TI does not warrant that the Licensed Materials will
; be free from errors or will meet your specific requirements.
; The Licensed Materials are made available "AS IS" to LICENSEE.
; Limitations: TI MAKES NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION, EITHER EXPRESS
; OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED
; WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE,
; REGARDING THE LICENSED MATERIALS. IN NO EVENT SHALL
; TI OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL
; OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF USE OR DATA,
; OR INTERRUPTION OF BUSINESS, WHETHER THE ALLEGED DAMAGES ARE
; LABELED IN TORT, CONTRACT OR INDEMNITY.
The calculator hacking community has since modified this file, and
redistributes it in a lot of projects (many of which are open source).
However, as best as I can tell, this copyright statement does not
explicitly grant the right to redistribute this file. My thinking then is
that Fedora cannot ship it. But I'd be interested in getting a second
This is redistributed by spasm-ng (a z80 assembler), which I'm in the
process of packaging; but due to this licensing question, I've elected
*not* to ship the file. (The rest of spasm-ng is GPLv2; it's just this
include file that is dubious). The package is perfectly functional without
it, since, as I said, most authors include this as part of their projects
Thanks in advance,
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 6:16 PM Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> I have some questions about OCB and it's usage in Fedora.
>> I wanted to package pycryptodome and found that they implement OCB
>> in their code. From my POV (completely without any legal knowledge) it
>> seems that it's not completely free as it's not allowed for
>> military use. It seems to be allowed without any restrictions only for
>> What do you think? Looks like now we have mosh packaged and it
>> includes OCB (so if it's not acceptable, it most probably should be
>>  http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/
>>  https://pycryptodome.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
>>  http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm
>>  https://mosh.org
>> -Igor Gnatenko
> I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that OCB is available to be implemented
> under 4 different license options:
> 1. Any open source software licensed under an approved license by OSI or
> public domain.
> 2. General license for non-military use.
> 3. OpenSSL-specific use.
> 4. Special license from the patent owner.
> Only option 2 has the non-military restriction, and anything in Fedora would
> almost certainly fall under 1 or 3. So, I can't imagine there'd be a problem
> using the OCB patent in Fedora software. I'm actually not even sure why
> option 3 even exists, since it seems to be a subset of option 1. Regardless,
> it doesn't look like the non-military restriction of option 2 would apply if
> option 1 is used.
Unfortunately I don't know how licenses applies, so if program is
licensed under OSI-approved license then 2nd license doesn't apply
> devel mailing list
Tumbolia Public License
Copyright 2013, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis(a)gmail.com>
Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, are
permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright notice
notice are preserved.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. opan saurce LOL
=== End of license text, my e-mail continues ===
So I've found this license in  and was wondering whether this is OK
or not. As I see it, the first part after the copyright notice is
basically MIT/ISC-ish, however the TERMS AND CONDITIONS part kind of
adds another layer of complexity by saying something that I guess
(legally speaking) cannot be done, because it does not mean anything
(even if you read it as "be open source").
They have it in Debian .
In ome of the code I have written I've included the following notice:
Authorship and License
All of this code was originally written by Jason Tibbitts
<tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> and has been donated to the public domain. If you
require a statement of license, please consider this work to be licensed
as "CC0 Universal", any version you choose.
Obviously I really don't want to be concerned with copyright issues on
this code. Could someone comment on whether this is a reasonable way to
accomplish that, and if it is, which License: tag Fedora would use for
this code? I have always understood the point behind CC0, but until
recently I hadn't actually read it and was saddened to find that it took
so much boilerplate just to say I want to release copyright.