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, 2 weeks
Lua Logo license text (restricted modifications)
by Miro Hrončok
Hello. I try to package a software that shows the Lua logo in it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834280
The logo's license is:
Copyright © 1998 Lua.org. Graphic design by Alexandre Nakonechnyj.
Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without license or
royalty fees, to use, copy, and distribute this logo for any purpose, including
commercial applications, subject to the following conditions:
- The origin of this logo must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that
you drew the original logo.
- The only modification you can make is to adapt the orbiting text to your
product name.
- The logo can be used in any scale as long as the relative proportions of its
elements are maintained.
---end---
Clearly, this does not allow modifications, but do we have some exceptions for
branding? Or do I need to strip the logo out of the package?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
3 years
Is BSD-2-Clause with addition clause allowed?
by Vascom
Hello.
I want to add rtklib in repos and I need to Know about allowing it's
license in Fedora.
It is BSD-2-Clause but with addition clause:
- The software package includes some companion executive binaries or shared
libraries necessary to execute APs on Windows. These licenses succeed to the
original ones of these software.
Full text available here
https://github.com/tomojitakasu/RTKLIB/blob/master/readme.txt
But I am not include any binary or windows specific files in package.
3 years, 1 month
Please give your advice in bug 1801519
by Robert-André Mauchin
Hello,
Could you please take a look at bug 1801519?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801519
The package is golang-github-google-licenseclassifier. It contains the text of
a large number of licenses to detect them. Some of these Licenses are good for
Fedora, other not. Basically am I allowed to distribute the text of these
licenses along my package? What it the license status of the text of the
licenses? Is each license covered by itself?
Best regards,
Robert-André
3 years, 1 month
Determining minimum package review requirements relating to licenses
by Jason Tibbitts
One of the various reasons for having package reviews is having a human
verify that the packager's choice of License: tag is valid. The
Packaging Committee is was faced with a request
(https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1007) that has us
questioning just how much license review is required.
Are any of the following acceptable?
1) Trust the packager to do a license review, with no reviewer
verification.
2) Trust the output of an automated tool which attempts to detect
project licenses (such as askalono).
3) Trust the license tag from a project hosting service such as github?
(I understand that the answer may depend on the hosting service.)
Depending on what is acceptable, we may be able to reduce bureaucracy a
bit. I know that back when I did package reviews, the license review
was often the most difficult part.
- J<
3 years, 1 month
Re: FlexiBLAS as BLAS/LAPACK manager - Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal
by Miro Hrončok
On 01. 07. 20 16:24, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlexiBLAS_as_BLAS/LAPACK_manager
>
> == Summary ==
> BLAS/LAPACK packages will be compiled against the FlexiBLAS wrapper
> library, which will set OpenBLAS as system-wide default backend, and
> at the same time will provide a proper switching mechanism that
> currently Fedora lacks.
>
> ...
>
> == Scope ==
> * Proposal owners: Modify the SPECs of the BLAS/LAPACK-dependent
> packages to build against FlexiBLAS instead of the current backend
> they are using.
I wonder, given FlexiBLAS is released under GPL (and not LGPL), whether this
means we would need to change the licenses of all non-GPL packages that will be
linked to FlexiBLAS to GPL.
CCing legal.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
3 years, 2 months
