C Library ABI for ARM Architecture

[Shakthi Kannan]

Hi,

Could you please let me know if the license (Section 1.4) mentioned in
the specification document, "C Library ABI for ARM Architecture" [1]
an acceptable one for Fedora?

Thanks!

SK

[1] http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ihi0039b/IHI0039B_clibabi.p...

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> > > > > "SK" == Shakthi Kannan  writes:

SK> Hi, Could you please let me know if the license (Section 1.4)
SK> mentioned in the specification document, "C Library ABI for ARM
SK> Architecture" [1] an acceptable one for Fedora?

A couple of points; I'm not a lawyer.

It does not seem to permit modification.  I suppose that's not really a
problem for a document (as opposed to code) under Fedora's rules for
content.

It restricts the use and copying of the document to "the purpose of
developing, having developed, manufacturing, having manufactured,
offering to sell, selling, supplying or otherwise distributing products
which comply with the Specification."  I wonder if I violated the
license by looking at the document, since I have no intention of doing
any of those things.

- J<

[Tom Callaway]

On 01/13/2011 04:41 AM, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could you please let me know if the license (Section 1.4) mentioned in
> the specification document, "C Library ABI for ARM Architecture" [1]
> an acceptable one for Fedora?

This license isn't free, which normally would not be an issue with
documentation, as we treat documentation as content (and not code) in
Fedora, but there is no permission to distribute documentation with that
license, so any documentation under that license would not be
permissibility in Fedora (because it fails the content requirement of
unrestricted redistributability).

I don't think redistributability is actually a word, but hopefully you
get my meaning. :)

~tom

==
Fedora Project

[Shakthi Kannan]

Hi,

--- On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:18 AM, Tom Callaway  wrote:
| This license isn't free, which normally would not be an issue with
| documentation, as we treat documentation as content (and not code) in
| Fedora, but there is no permission to distribute documentation with that
| license, so any documentation under that license would not be
| permissibility in Fedora (because it fails the content requirement of
| unrestricted redistributability).
--

What about code that complies with the specification? Is it
permissible to distribute the same within the Fedora distribution?

Thanks for your feedback,

SK

[Tom Callaway]

On 01/13/2011 09:42 PM, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
> What about code that complies with the specification? Is it
> permissible to distribute the same within the Fedora distribution?

The license says:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, “Specification” shall not include (i)
   the implementation of other published specifications referenced in
   this Specification;

And since all of the license terms apply to the "Specification", any
code written in compliance with this specification is not affected by
this license.

Or, to put it simply, this license only applies to the Specification, so
even though it is non-free, it has no effect on code. Code will be under
independent licensing, which will have to be judged independently.

~tom

==
Fedora Project