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
9 months
Is the coremark-pro Acceptable Use Agreement acceptable?
by Michel Salim
Hi,
We are looking at packaging coremark-pro, a benchmarking tool:
https://github.com/eembc/coremark-pro/
It's licensed under the Apache License 2.0, which is fine, but comes
with an Acceptable Use Agreement tied to the authors' trademarks:
https://github.com/eembc/coremark-pro/blob/main/LICENSE.md
Most of it seems like standard trademark protection boilerplate, but
this section in particular seems concerning:
4.1. Publication of Results. A "Commercial COREMARK-PRO License" from
EEMBC is required for Licensee to disclose, reference, or publish test
results generated by COREMARK-PRO in Licensee’s marketing of any of
Licensee’s commercially‐available, product‐related materials,
including, but not limited to product briefs, website, product
brochures, product datasheets, or any white paper or article made
available for public consumption.
Is this fine, or is this considered 'legally encumbered' per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items ?
Thanks,
--
Michel Alexandre Salim
profile: https://keyoxide.org/michel@michel-slm.name
2 years, 5 months
Do we need to strip code with use restrictions from the tarball, or is deleting in %prep enough?
by Miro Hrončok
Assuming an upstream tarball contains one example file under the BSD license
with the following usage restriction:
* You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for
* use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear
* facility.
Can we rm that nonfree file in %prep, or do we need to strip it from the
tarball as well?
My assumption is that we strip content that we cannot even re-distribute from
SRPM, which should not be the case here, but I am not sure.
Thanks,
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
2 years, 6 months
Curious maybe FOSS license that I can't identify
by Robert-André Mauchin
Hello,
In a review I came across this License:
© Copyright 2000 UserLand Software, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
© Copyright 2006-2007 Scripting News, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
UserLand Software, Inc. and Scripting News, Inc. are refererred to in
the following as "the Companies."
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or
assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and these paragraphs are
included on all such copies and derivative works.
This document may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the
copyright notice or references to the Companies or other organizations.
Further, while these copyright restrictions apply to the written OPML
specification, no claim of ownership is made by the Companies to the
format it describes. Any party may, for commercial or non-commercial
purposes, implement this format without royalty or license fee to the
Companies. The limited permissions granted herein are perpetual and will
not be revoked by the Companies or their successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS
IS" basis and THE COMPANIES DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
I've found some RFC example like:
http://dev.opml.org/spec1.html
https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec21.html
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2549
It seems to refer to translation these specifications.
I don't know the name of that license. Can anyone identify it and tell
me if it's acceptable in Fedora?
Best regards,
Robert-André
2 years, 6 months
