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
1 year, 1 month
transgrp license
by Jerry James
For many years now, the gap package has bundled 3 sets of data files
describing mathematical structures (groups). I am working on updating
the Fedora package to the latest release, version 4.10.0. In this
version, those 3 sets of data files have been split out into
separately distributed entities, with their own home pages and release
schedules. They all grew new license terms, too. I am worried about
the license on one of them, transgrp (see
https://www.gap-system.org/Packages/transgrp.html). It reads:
This library containing data and access functions, its parts are licensed in
different ways.
- In the belief that mathematical truth is universal and not owned or
licenseable, the mathematical content can only be acknowledged: Groups of
degree up to 15 are as described in Conway/Hulpke/McKay (LMS. Journal
Comp. Math, Vol 1.) and the sources quoted therein.
Groups of degree up to 30 were determined by Hulpke (J.Symb.Comp). Groups of
degree 32 were determined by Cannon and Holt (Exp.Math.). Groups of degree
33-47 were determined by Holt.
- The actual way of storing the groups and associated data, and the
arrangement of the groups, is licensed under the artistic license 2.0:
https://opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-2.0
If you distribute software that claims to use or include the GAP transitive
groups library it must include the actual data lists verbatim.
- The functions accessing the data files are licensed under GPL2 and under
GPL3.
I would call this license "Artistic 2.0 and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)", except
that I am worried about the sentence that begins "If you distribute
software...". That sentence refers to the data files. There is no
code in them, just formal descriptions of mathematical structures. Is
that sentence a problem?
Thank you,
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
5 years, 2 months
Fwd: proj datumgrid licenses
by Elliott Sales de Andrade
Resending after subscribing; please excuse any duplicate emails.
Hi,
I'm looking to update proj, and also add the new optional datumgrid
files. Fortunately, they are meticulous about licenses and they are
all annotated for the main package [1], European files [2], North
American files [3], and Oceania files [4].
For the main and European datasets, there are some files licensed
under the License Ouverte [5]. It's designed to be compatible with CC,
OGL, and ODC-BY, but I don't see this one listed on our licensing
page. Can someone confirm whether or not the License Ouverte is
acceptable in Fedora?
There are also some files that are "Free redistribution is allowed and
welcome", which I think might be okay for data and not code, but some
clarification there would also be helpful.
FWIW, at least one file with those licenses is packaged in Debian
(though I realize we have other concerns.)
[1] https://github.com/OSGeo/proj-datumgrid/blob/master/README.DATUMGRID
[2] https://github.com/OSGeo/proj-datumgrid/blob/master/europe/README.EUROPE
[3] https://github.com/OSGeo/proj-datumgrid/blob/master/north-america/README....
[4] https://github.com/OSGeo/proj-datumgrid/blob/master/oceania/README.OCEANIA
[5] https://www.etalab.gouv.fr/licence-ouverte-open-licence
--
Elliott
5 years, 2 months
Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal
by Matthew Miller
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 04:03:17PM -0500, John Harris wrote:
> Even taken to an extreme, it would likely be sufficient to link to Fedora's
> sources on any software used to provide MongoDB as a service, assuming their
> service itself is free software.
As I understand it, the requirement is not just to make the source code
available, but to make it available _under the terms of this license_.
As suggested, please take further dicussion to legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
(cc'd).
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
5 years, 2 months
