Do we need to strip code with use restrictions from the tarball, or is deleting in %prep enough?

[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,

[Florian Weimer]

* 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?

I think this has been carefully worded so that it does not constitute a
field-of-use restriction.  If I'm correct, this is not in itself a
reason why the license is not acceptable to Fedora.

Here's a similar example:

| […]  THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT DESIGNED OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS
| ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING
| FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES,
| AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL,
| DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE
| OF THE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR
| SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE ("HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES"). […]

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT#Nuclear_Variant

Thanks,
Florian

[Ian McInerney]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:16 PM Florian Weimer  wrote:
> 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?
>
> I think this has been carefully worded so that it does not constitute a
> field-of-use restriction.  If I'm correct, this is not in itself a
> reason why the license is not acceptable to Fedora.
>
> Here's a similar example:
>
> | […]  THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT DESIGNED OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS
> | ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING
> | FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES,
> | AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL,
> | DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE
> | OF THE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR
> | SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE ("HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES"). […]
>
> <
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT#Nuclear_Varian...
> >

I think there is a difference between the MIT nuclear example and the BSD
one given above - the BSD one said  "...is not designed, licensed or
intended..." and the MIT one did not have the word licensed in it (it only
said "...IS NOT DESIGNED OR INTENDED..."). It isn't clear to me though if
the term "licensed" used in the BSD one means that the code license would
forbid its use in the facility (which would be a license restriction), or
if they mean it hasn't been licensed by a regulatory authority for use in
the facility (which would not be a restriction).

-Ian

[Ben Cotton]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:26 AM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
> 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.

I agree that it's best to remove it from the tarball so that it
doesn't end up in the SRPM.

The difference between this license and the "Nuclear Variant" of MIT
is that the Nuclear Variant says "we're not responsible for anything
that happens if you use it in this context" but it does not forbid the
use the way this license does.

[Miro Hrončok]

On 02. 06. 21 19:04, Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:26 AM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I agree that it's best to remove it from the tarball so that it
> doesn't end up in the SRPM.

Thanks for clarification. We'll do that. We have also contacted upstream and 
asked them politely if they would consider dropping it.
> The difference between this license and the "Nuclear Variant" of MIT
> is that the Nuclear Variant says "we're not responsible for anything
> that happens if you use it in this context" but it does not forbid the
> use the way this license does.