Suitability of EPICS Open License

[Richard Fearn]

Hi,

I would like to get the legal team's opinion on the EPICS Open License:

  http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics/license/open.php

This licence is used for the Experimental Physics and Industrial
Control System (EPICS):

  http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics/

More information about the licence can be found here:

  http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics/license/index.php

Thanks,

Richard

-- 
Richard Fearn
richardfearn(a)gmail.com

[Tom Callaway]

On 03/06/2015 11:13 AM, Richard Fearn wrote:
>  Hi,
>  
>  I would like to get the legal team's opinion on the EPICS Open License:
>  
>    http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics/license/open.php
>  
>  This licence is used for the Experimental Physics and Industrial
>  Control System (EPICS):
>  
>    http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics/
>  
>  More information about the licence can be found here:
>  
>    http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics/license/index.php 
Free and GPL compatible. Added to the Fedora license list. Please use
"EPICS" in the License field for any package under these terms.

~tom

==
Red Hat

[Richard Fearn]

>  Free and GPL compatible. Added to the Fedora license list. Please
> use
>  "EPICS" in the License field for any package under these terms. 
Thanks very much Tom!

Richard

-- 
Richard Fearn
richardfearn(a)gmail.com

Prominent notice of changes (Was: Suitability of EPICS Open License)

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "TC" == Tom Callaway
> <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; writes: 
TC> Free and GPL compatible.

Interesting.  The clause about modified copies carrying prominent
notices isn't completely clear to me. The GPL (v2, at least) requires
that modified _source files_ carry a prominent notice (which is probably
something with which few people actually comply) but this EPICS license
is unclear as to whether it's the source files, the documentation, or
the output of the program itself which must carry the notice.

My reading of the EPICS license would suggest that a README.Fedora file
included in the usual location for documentation would be sufficient
notice, but I'm no lawyer.

Still, for these "prominent notice" things, I wonder if there's any
information anywhere about just how packagers should supply such
notices or exactly what they should do to comply with such licenses.
Does our method of supplying pristine source + patches take care of at
least the GPL requirements?  (I'm sure the smart folks have already
thought of this, of course; I just don't know if it's written down
anywhere.)

 - J<

Prominent notice of changes (Was: Suitability of EPICS Open License)

[Tom Callaway]

On 03/10/2015 12:00 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "TC" == Tom Callaway
> <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; writes:
>  
>  TC> Free and GPL compatible.
>  
>  Interesting.  The clause about modified copies carrying prominent
>  notices isn't completely clear to me. The GPL (v2, at least) requires
>  that modified _source files_ carry a prominent notice (which is probably
>  something with which few people actually comply) but this EPICS license
>  is unclear as to whether it's the source files, the documentation, or
>  the output of the program itself which must carry the notice.
>  
>  My reading of the EPICS license would suggest that a README.Fedora file
>  included in the usual location for documentation would be sufficient
>  notice, but I'm no lawyer.
>  
>  Still, for these "prominent notice" things, I wonder if there's any
>  information anywhere about just how packagers should supply such
>  notices or exactly what they should do to comply with such licenses.
>  Does our method of supplying pristine source + patches take care of at
>  least the GPL requirements?  (I'm sure the smart folks have already
>  thought of this, of course; I just don't know if it's written down
>  anywhere.) 
I'd argue that Fedora's distribution/packaging method meets this
requirement and would also meet the EPICS license requirement. That
said, because the EPICS license is not entirely clear as to whether the
"prominent notice" applies to both the source and the binary
distribution, or simply to one or the other, if I were the packager of a
work under the EPICS license, I would probably ask the upstream how and
when they wish for the prominent notice to be applied.

This is roughly analogous to the "attribution" clause in the CC license
family.

~tom

==
Red Hat

Prominent notice of changes

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "TC" == Tom Callaway
> <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; writes: 
TC> I'd argue that Fedora's distribution/packaging method meets this
TC> requirement and would also meet the EPICS license requirement.

Cool, thanks.  Is it worth writing this down anywhere?  (Or did I miss
where this was already written down?)

 - J<

Prominent notice of changes

[Tom Callaway]

On 03/12/2015 02:38 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "TC" == Tom Callaway
> <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; writes:
>  
>  TC> I'd argue that Fedora's distribution/packaging method meets this
>  TC> requirement and would also meet the EPICS license requirement.
>  
>  Cool, thanks.  Is it worth writing this down anywhere?  (Or did I miss
>  where this was already written down?) 
Aside from the previous post? I don't believe this is written down
anywhere. If someone thinks this data is useful, I could add it to the FAQ.

~tom

==
Red Hat

Prominent notice of changes

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "TC" == Tom Callaway
> <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; writes: 
TC> Aside from the previous post?

Yeah, sorry, I meant in our wiki or something.  I guess it's not a big
deal; it just seemed to me like at some point someone who cares might
question some of these "prominent notice" clauses.  But maybe I'm the
only one who will ever care....

 - J<