Henry Spencer's license
by Petr Šabata
Dear legal,
While checking the contents of our `perl' package, I noticed the following:
(...)
/* NOTE: this is derived from Henry Spencer's regexp code, and should not
* confused with the original package (see point 3 below). Thanks, Henry!
*/
/* Additional note: this code is very heavily munged from Henry's version
* in places. In some spots I've traded clarity for efficiency, so don't
* blame Henry for some of the lack of readability.
*/
/* The names of the functions have been changed from regcomp and
* regexec to pregcomp and pregexec in order to avoid conflicts
* with the POSIX routines of the same names.
*/
(...)
* pregcomp and pregexec -- regsub and regerror are not used in perl
*
* Copyright (c) 1986 by University of Toronto.
* Written by Henry Spencer. Not derived from licensed software.
*
* Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any
* purpose on any computer system, and to redistribute it freely,
* subject to the following restrictions:
*
* 1. The author is not responsible for the consequences of use of
* this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise
* from defects in it.
*
* 2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either
* by explicit claim or by omission.
*
* 3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not
* be misrepresented as being the original software.
*
**** Alterations to Henry's code are...
****
**** Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
**** 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
**** by Larry Wall and others
****
**** You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
**** License or the Artistic License, as specified in the README file.
(...)
You can see the whole file here:
https://metacpan.org/source/SHAY/perl-5.20.1/regexec.c
I looked but couldn't find any common name for this license
of Henry's. Is it on our list? Is it free? What name should
I use in the License tag?
Thank you,
Petr
6 months, 3 weeks
Batch icon set license
by Samuel Rakitničan
Dear list,
Can you help me identify license used by Batch icon set.
---
USAGE LICENSE:
You are free to use Batch (the "icon set") or any part thereof (the "icons") in any personal, open-source or commercial work without obligation of payment (monetary or otherwise) or attribution. Do not sell the icon set, host the icon set or rent the icon set (either in existing or modified form).
While attribution is optional, it is always appreciated.
Intellectual property rights are not transferred with the download of the icons.
EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL ADAM WHITCROFT BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE ICONS, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
---
http://adamwhitcroft.com/batch/
Thank you in advance,
Samuel Rakitničan
5 years, 8 months
Is legal mention packages that aren't in Fedora repos ?
by Sérgio Basto
Hi,
Before commit it and push, I'd like have clearance, that is not
breaking any legal police of Fedora .
We have mlt in Fedora repos and mlt-freeworld but it is complex debug
it, so I'd like have one rpm spec file with some conditional macros and
where is possible build the complete package and but just build the
legal part on Fedora [1] , do you see any legal problem ?
Thanks and happy new year !
[1]
diff --git a/mlt.spec b/mlt.spec
index 9562287..e077bca 100644
--- a/mlt.spec
+++ b/mlt.spec
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
%bcond_without ruby
%bcond_without php
+%bcond_with freeworld
#globals for https://github.com/mltframework/mlt/commit/ea973eb65c8ca7
9a859028a9e008360836ca4941
@@ -48,6 +49,11 @@ BuildRequires: pulseaudio-libs-devel
BuildRequires: alsa-lib-devel
BuildRequires: movit-devel
BuildRequires: vid.stab-devel
+%if %{with freeworld}
+BuildRequires: ffmpeg-devel
+BuildRequires: libquicktime-devel
+BuildRequires: xine-lib-devel
+%endif
%if %{with ruby}
BuildRequires: ruby-devel ruby
--
Sérgio M. B.
5 years, 8 months
Ocaml documentation license
by Florian Weimer
Should Fedora distribute content under the Ocaml documentation license?
The license says:
“
The present documentation is copyright © 2013 Institut National de
Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA). The OCaml
documentation and user’s manual may be reproduced and distributed in
whole or in part, subject to the following conditions:
• The copyright notice above and this permission notice must be
preserved complete on all complete or partial copies.
• Any translation or derivative work of the OCaml documentation and
user’s manual must be approved by the authors in writing before
distribution.
• If you distribute the OCaml documentation and user’s manual in
part, instructions for obtaining the complete version of this manual
must be included, and a means for obtaining a complete version provided.
• Small portions may be reproduced as illustrations for reviews or
quotes in other works without this permission notice if proper citation
is given.
”
For program source code, this would clearly not be allowed because
derivative works are not permitted. Are such restrictions permitted for
documentation licenses in Fedora?
Thanks,
Florian
5 years, 8 months
