rpms/octave-forge/devel octave-forge.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Fri Apr 22 04:50:03 UTC 2005

On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 15:34 -0500, Quentin Spencer wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 12:20 -0400, Quentin Spencer wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>Author: qspencer
> >>
> >>Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/octave-forge/devel
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >  
> >
> >>License:        GPL
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >??? From:
> >
> >octave-forge-2004.11.16/nonfree/splines/LICENSE.gcvsplf
> >
> >  
> >
> >>MEMO:                     GCVSPL software package
> >>
> >>(C) COPYRIGHT 1985, 1986: H.J. Woltring
> >>                          Philips Medical Systems Division, Eindhoven
> >>                          University of Nijmegen (The Netherlands)
> >>
> >>DATE:                     1986-05-12
> >>
> >>NB: This software is copyrighted, and may be copied for excercise,
> >>study and use without authorization from the copyright owner(s), in
> >>compliance with paragraph 16b of the Dutch Copyright Act of 1912
> >>("Auteurswet 1912"). Within the constraints of this legislation, all
> >>forms of academic and research-oriented excercise, study, and use are
> >>allowed, including any necessary modifications. Copying and use as
> >>object for commercial exploitation are not allowed without permission
> >>of the copyright owners, including those upon whose work the package
> >>is based.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >IMO, the last sentence might disqualify this package from inclusion in
> >FE and should be something to analyze for RH's legal office.
> >
> >Ralf
> >  
> >
> Yes, it might. However, these files are not built by default, and are 
> therefore not included in the RPM that results.
Let me put it this way: To me personally (IANAL), this licensing is
fine, however I think a lawyer needs to look into to clarify 3 aspects:

1. Legally (Does shipping these sources violate any applicable laws).
IMO, probably not.

2. Does this license contradict the CLA?
IMO, it probably does. As this is a legal matter, it should be taken
serious, because it could put _you_ and the Fedora Project into a
legally problematic situation.

3. Does this license contradict the general conventions on licenses
being applied to FE packages?

IMO, this package contradicts the FOSS. However the FOSS is a
"convention" not a "contract nor law", therefore this isn't a legal
issue and therefore actually doesn't matter much.

>  I could make the spec 
> file remove the nonfree tree altogether to make sure it doesn't happen, 
> but the fact remains that the source code is still there.
IMO, the problem is "shipping non-free sources" as part of FE, therefore
the only solution to avoid potential licensing issues would be to remove
these sources from the tarball.

However, this package (according to your spec file) claims to be GPL'ed,
so removing the sources from the tarball would violate the GPL.
Consequently this wouldn't help.

>  Is that a problem?
I don't know how this issue can be resolve. 

As I see it, a somebody with a solid legal background (read: a laywer)
will have to review this package's licensing, wrt. to the actual legal
issues, then other will have to decide upon FOSS compliance.


More information about the scm-commits mailing list