THOR Public License (based on MPL)

[Dan Horák]

Hi,

I am preparing a package (Atari++, http://www.math.tu-berlin.de/%
7Ethor/atari++/) that is using a clone of the MPLv1.1. What License: tag
should I use? All files related to licensing are attached, source files
contain a header like in adrspace.cpp.

	
	Thanks,
		Dan

[Tom Callaway]

On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 17:58 +0100, Dan Horák wrote:
>  I am preparing a package (Atari++, http://www.math.tu-berlin.de/%
>  7Ethor/atari++/) that is using a clone of the MPLv1.1. What License:
>  tag
>  should I use? All files related to licensing are attached, source
>  files
>  contain a header like in adrspace.cpp. 
Normally, I'd just say to use MPLv1.1 here, but since he changed the
jurisdiction of law, it is worth noting it as a separate license. I've
added it to the Licensing list.

Use: 

License: TPL

~spot

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

This package brings up a couple of other issues.

Firstly, it's an emulator, but it doesn't seem to need any original
ROMs to run because they're written their own work-alikes.  I'm
assuming this is OK, but I guess it's worth asking.

Secondly, those work-alike ROMs are included in pre-assembled format,
with the source being made available separately.  What are our
obligations with respect to providing the source to these ROMs?  And,
perhaps offtopic for this list, how does this jibe with the general
Fedora "build everything from source" goal?

 - J<

[Dan Horák]

Jason L Tibbitts III píše v St 19. 11. 2008 v 12:36 -0600:
>  This package brings up a couple of other issues.
>  
>  Firstly, it's an emulator, but it doesn't seem to need any original
>  ROMs to run because they're written their own work-alikes.  I'm
>  assuming this is OK, but I guess it's worth asking.
>   
I have made the same assumption before trying to package it officially.

>  Secondly, those work-alike ROMs are included in pre-assembled
> format,
>  with the source being made available separately.  What are our
>  obligations with respect to providing the source to these ROMs?  And,
>  perhaps offtopic for this list, how does this jibe with the general
>  Fedora "build everything from source" goal? 
Now there is a technical problem to build the ROM, because we don't have
a package for the cc65 cross-compiler environment. But IMHO it should
not be required to build such non-native content from sources assuming
its license is free enough.


		Dan