CDF license

[Jussi Lehtola]

Hi,


I'm packaging TeLa, which requires the NASA CDF library.
http://cdf.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Review request is at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494520


The copyright is as follows:


Copyright 2008
Space Physics Data Facility
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

This software may be copied or redistributed as long as it is not sold
for profit, but it can be incorporated into any other substantive
product with or without modifications for profit or non-profit.  If the 
software is modified, it must include the following notices:

  - The software is not the original (for protectiion of the original
    author's reputations from any problems introduced by others)

  - Change history (e.g. date, functionality, etc.)

This copyright notice must be reproduced on each copy made. This
software is provided as is without any express or implied warranties
whatsoever.

** 

Is the license acceptable for inclusion?
-- 
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 01:02:25PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I'm packaging TeLa, which requires the NASA CDF library.
> http://cdf.gsfc.nasa.gov/
>
> Review request is at
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494520
>
>
> The copyright is as follows:
>
>
> Copyright 2008
> Space Physics Data Facility
> NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
>
> This software may be copied or redistributed as long as it is not sold
> for profit, but it can be incorporated into any other substantive
> product with or without modifications for profit or non-profit.  If the 
> software is modified, it must include the following notices:
>
>   - The software is not the original (for protectiion of the original
>     author's reputations from any problems introduced by others)
>
>   - Change history (e.g. date, functionality, etc.)
>
> This copyright notice must be reproduced on each copy made. This
> software is provided as is without any express or implied warranties
> whatsoever.
>
> ** 
>
> Is the license acceptable for inclusion? 
It would seem no.  It has a very confusing 'not sold for profit' item.

Spot can weigh in more if needs be.

josh

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "JB" == Josh Boyer
> <jwboyer(a)gmail.com&gt; writes: 
JB> It would seem no.  It has a very confusing 'not sold for profit'
JB> item.

Note that Debian believes this is sufficiently free, because they have
no requirement that software be redistributable for profit on its own,
only as part of their distribution (as I understand it).  See the
thread at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg28746.html

I honestly do not know what Fedora's position is on this, but it is
possible to use the Bistream Vera license (which has a similar "don't
sell it by itself" clause) as an example.  It's a font, however, and
that may make it special somehow.  Note that this question of software
that can't be sold by itself comes up more often than you'd think.

 - J<

[Tom Callaway]

On 04/07/2009 06:02 AM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:

>  Is the license acceptable for inclusion? 
No. It is poorly worded and non-free. Red Hat Legal concurs with that
assessment.

~spot