Henry Spencer's license
by Petr Šabata
Dear legal,
While checking the contents of our `perl' package, I noticed the following:
(...)
/* NOTE: this is derived from Henry Spencer's regexp code, and should not
* confused with the original package (see point 3 below). Thanks, Henry!
*/
/* Additional note: this code is very heavily munged from Henry's version
* in places. In some spots I've traded clarity for efficiency, so don't
* blame Henry for some of the lack of readability.
*/
/* The names of the functions have been changed from regcomp and
* regexec to pregcomp and pregexec in order to avoid conflicts
* with the POSIX routines of the same names.
*/
(...)
* pregcomp and pregexec -- regsub and regerror are not used in perl
*
* Copyright (c) 1986 by University of Toronto.
* Written by Henry Spencer. Not derived from licensed software.
*
* Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any
* purpose on any computer system, and to redistribute it freely,
* subject to the following restrictions:
*
* 1. The author is not responsible for the consequences of use of
* this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise
* from defects in it.
*
* 2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either
* by explicit claim or by omission.
*
* 3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not
* be misrepresented as being the original software.
*
**** Alterations to Henry's code are...
****
**** Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
**** 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
**** by Larry Wall and others
****
**** You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
**** License or the Artistic License, as specified in the README file.
(...)
You can see the whole file here:
https://metacpan.org/source/SHAY/perl-5.20.1/regexec.c
I looked but couldn't find any common name for this license
of Henry's. Is it on our list? Is it free? What name should
I use in the License tag?
Thank you,
Petr
1 year, 2 months
Lua Logo license text (restricted modifications)
by Miro Hrončok
Hello. I try to package a software that shows the Lua logo in it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834280
The logo's license is:
Copyright © 1998 Lua.org. Graphic design by Alexandre Nakonechnyj.
Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without license or
royalty fees, to use, copy, and distribute this logo for any purpose, including
commercial applications, subject to the following conditions:
- The origin of this logo must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that
you drew the original logo.
- The only modification you can make is to adapt the orbiting text to your
product name.
- The logo can be used in any scale as long as the relative proportions of its
elements are maintained.
---end---
Clearly, this does not allow modifications, but do we have some exceptions for
branding? Or do I need to strip the logo out of the package?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
3 years, 8 months
Legal blockers regarding WSL release?
by CJ Harries
In May 2017, Rich Turner from Microsoft mentioned that a Fedora release would be coming to WSL (https://web.archive.org/web/https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/ne...). In June 2019, Matthew Miller from Fedora said there was a "blocker [in] the legal agreement for [the Fedora Project] to put the installer in the [Microsoft] store" (https://web.archive.org/web/https://twitter.com/mattdm/status/11409576086...). I'm unable to find anything on the wiki (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Legal) or here in the legal mailing list that explains either the cancellation or the blockers. Normally I'm able to find great explanations regarding legal issues, so this must have slipped through the cracks.
1. What are the legal blockers in the MS App Developer Agreement (https://web.archive.org/web/https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/window... I noticed some language regarding FOSS that might not be GPL compatible. If that's not the right agreement, which one is and what are its issues?
2. WSL 2 introduced a boilerplate project to connect new distros (http://web.archive.org/web/https://github.com/microsoft/WSL-DistroLauncher). I believe (haven't tested; please correct me if wrong) it can be run only using newer Microsoft FOSS tools under an MIT license. Could this tool be used in an official capacity? If not, what are the blockers?
3. WSL 1 was explicitly not FOSS (http://web.archive.org/web/https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/1). As far as I know, WSL 2 still relies on Hyper-V, so, even hypothetically supposing everything else about WSL 2 is open source, could WSL 2 fall under acceptable licensing criteria? Microsoft discussed some of the tweaks they made if the hypothetical is unrealistic (http://web.archive.org/web/https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/shi...).
4. Tom Callaway (a Fedora legal liaison w/o notable mutant powers http://web.archive.org/web/https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Spot) provided some excellent suggestions for Microsoft two years ago regarding Microsoft packages being accepted by the Fedora Project (http://web.archive.org/web/https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/...). Are there similar suggestions users can send to Microsoft to champion acceptance?
In doing research to present these questions, I think I have a general idea regarding WSL. However, earlier in the legal thread I linked (http://web.archive.org/web/https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/...), Tom explicitly asks for no idle speculation, so I'd prefer an experienced opinion.
I really appreciate all the hard work that goes into this. As a developer, not a lawyer, this topic can be very esoteric at times. Microsoft has been making an effort to move away from EEE in recent years, so getting some perspective from the Fedora team regarding their efforts would be very useful to FOSS stewards.
Thanks for your time! Have a rad day.
3 years, 11 months
