Is the coremark-pro Acceptable Use Agreement acceptable?

[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/[e-mail]

[Ben Cotton]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 3:09 PM Michel Salim <michel(a)michel-slm.name&gt; wrote:
>  Most of it seems like standard trademark protection boilerplate, but
>  this section in particular seems concerning:
>  
If it said "you can't put our marks on the output without a
license",
I think that would be fine. But since it forbids any use of the output
without a license, it's not acceptable for inclusion in Fedora repos.

-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis

[Michel Alexandre Salim]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 11:47:16AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
>  On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 3:09 PM Michel Salim
> <michel(a)michel-slm.name&gt; wrote:
>  >
>  > Most of it seems like standard trademark protection boilerplate, but
>  > this section in particular seems concerning:
>  >
>  If it said "you can't put our marks on the output without a license",
>  I think that would be fine. But since it forbids any use of the output
>  without a license, it's not acceptable for inclusion in Fedora repos.
>  
Ah, I was afraid that might be the case. If I were to add it to... one
of the third party repos, it would be in the non-free section,
presumably

Thanks,

-- 
Michel Alexandre Salim
profile: https://keyoxide.org/[e-mail]