LatticeMico32 open source license agreement

[Shakthi Kannan]

Hi,

I request you to kindly go through this LatticeMico32 open source
license agreement, and let me know if it is an acceptable license for
Fedora:

http://shakthimaan.com/downloads/notes/lattice-semiconductor-toolchain.LICEN...

The license can be downloaded after creating an account at:

http://www.latticesemi.com/dynamic/index.cfm?fuseaction=view_documents&d...

Thanks!

SK

[Tom Callaway]

On 10/05/2010 01:58 AM, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I request you to kindly go through this LatticeMico32 open source
> license agreement, and let me know if it is an acceptable license for
> Fedora:
>
> http://shakthimaan.com/downloads/notes/lattice-semiconductor-toolchain.LICEN...

The perl components are listed as being under Artistic 1.0 which is
Non-Free.

The "Cygwin, GCC, binutils and the GDB portions of the software" are
under GPLv2 which is Free. (Although, I doubt that any of this will need
to be packaged for Fedora)

The "newlib" components do not provide a complete license list, stating
that: "this list may omit certain licenses that only pertain to the
copying/modifying of the individual source code." It is impossible for
me to know whether the omitted licenses are free or not.

However, the licenses listed are BSD (1), GPLv2 with exceptions (2), MIT
(3), a new license from AMD that looks to be Permissive and Free (4), a
Non-Free license (5), another Non-Free license (6), a new license from
Sun that looks to be Permissive and Free (7), a new MIT variant (8), MIT
(9), another new MIT variant (10), BSD (11), Same license as #4 with a
different copyright holder (12), BSD (13), BSD (14), BSD (15), BSD (16),
MIT (17), BSD (18), BSD (19), a Non-Free license (20), LGPLv2+ (21),
LGPLv2+ (22), MIT variant (23), Same license as #8 (24), zlib with
acknowledgement, which is Free but GPL-incompatible (25), BSD (26), BSD
(27), BSD (28), BSD (29).

Even if that was the complete list of licenses (which it claims not to
be), assuming all of that pile was compiled together, the result would
be non-free. Also noteworthy would be that if the non-free components
were removed/replaced/relicensed, the result would still be unacceptable
to Fedora because of the GPL-incompatible + GPLv2+ combination.

So, the short answer is no, this is not acceptable to Fedora.

~spot