Hello,
I am trying to package¹ editline https://troglobit.com/projects/editline/² for Fedora, which has an unusual license https://github.com/troglobit/editline/blob/master/LICENSE that originating from cnews: https://www.openhub.net/licenses/cnews.
Let me quote the full license text below too for completeness.
Can this be considered a BSD-ish or similar license? Or does it need a new Fedora license tag (CNEWS?)?
Thank you, Jens
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867290
Copyright 1992,1993 Simmule Turner and Rich Salz All rights reserved.
This software is not subject to any license of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company or of the Regents of the University of California.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose on any computer system, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: 1. The authors are not responsible for the consequences of use of this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise from flaws in it. 2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either by explicit claim or by omission. Since few users ever read sources, credits must appear in the documentation. 3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. Since few users ever read sources, credits must appear in the documentation. 4. This notice may not be removed or altered.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:33 AM Jens-Ulrik Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
I am trying to package¹ editline² for Fedora,
Please check the libedit package and see if that is the same as what you are trying to package.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 12:49 AM Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:33 AM Jens-Ulrik Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
I am trying to package¹ editline² for Fedora,
Please check the libedit package and see if that is the same as what you are trying to package.
How many readline compatible libraries do we need, right? Apparently editline originates from minix.
I am packaging editline because it is a (recent) dependency of nix alas. (nix itself can't be packaged properly in Fedora anyway because of '/nix'.) Probably it could be retrofitted to use libedit https://github.com/NixOS/nix/pull/2228#issuecomment-400399271 instead but I don't really want to do that. So adding editline will make it easier to build nix for Fedora.
Thanks, Jens
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:59 PM Jens-Ulrik Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 12:49 AM Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:33 AM Jens-Ulrik Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
I am trying to package¹ editline² for Fedora,
Please check the libedit package and see if that is the same as what you are trying to package.
How many readline compatible libraries do we need, right? Apparently editline originates from minix.
I am packaging editline because it is a (recent) dependency of nix alas. (nix itself can't be packaged properly in Fedora anyway because of '/nix'.) Probably it could be retrofitted to use libedit instead but I don't really want to do that. So adding editline will make it easier to build nix for Fedora.
Nix can be made to use GNU Readline. editline and libedit are both API compatible with GNU readline, so just use that. :)
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 12:42 PM Jens-Ulrik Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to package¹ editline² for Fedora, which has an unusual license that originating from cnews: https://www.openhub.net/licenses/cnews.
Let me quote the full license text below too for completeness.
Can this be considered a BSD-ish or similar license? Or does it need a new Fedora license tag (CNEWS?)?
This is almost identical to what Fedora calls the revised version of the Henry Spencer Regex Library License: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Henry_Spencer_Reg-Ex_Library_Licens...
Note this compliance-related comment: "Be sure to include a copy of the newer license terms in the package as %license, to comply with the "documentation" clauses."
Apparently the Fedora license tag for either version of the Henry Spencer license has been "HSRL". SPDX uses the short identifier "Spencer-94" for what I think is essentially identical to the revised HSRL.
The difference that I spotted is that this CNEWS license adds the word "freely". I believe that would cause the license text not to match Spencer-94 in the SPDX sense.
That difference is far less significant than textual differences in other licenses that Fedora has mapped to the sam License: tag. Therefore, as an unsatisfying shorter term solution here I'd suggest using "HSRL".
Richard
Thank you, Jens
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867290
Copyright 1992,1993 Simmule Turner and Rich Salz All rights reserved.
This software is not subject to any license of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company or of the Regents of the University of California.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose on any computer system, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions:
- The authors are not responsible for the consequences of use of this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise from flaws in it.
- The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either by explicit claim or by omission. Since few users ever read sources, credits must appear in the documentation.
- Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. Since few users ever read sources, credits must appear in the documentation.
- This notice may not be removed or altered.
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 1:52 AM Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 12:42 PM Jens-Ulrik Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
This is almost identical to what Fedora calls the revised version of the Henry Spencer Regex Library License:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Henry_Spencer_Reg-Ex_Library_Licens...
Note this compliance-related comment: "Be sure to include a copy of the newer license terms in the package as %license, to comply with the "documentation" clauses."
Sure
Apparently the Fedora license tag for either version of the Henry Spencer license has been "HSRL". SPDX uses the short identifier "Spencer-94" for what I think is essentially identical to the revised HSRL.
The difference that I spotted is that this CNEWS license adds the word "freely". I believe that would cause the license text not to match Spencer-94 in the SPDX sense.
That difference is far less significant than textual differences in other licenses that Fedora has mapped to the sam License: tag. Therefore, as an unsatisfying shorter term solution here I'd suggest using "HSRL".
Thank you very much, Richard!
Best regards, Jens
-
Jens-Ulrik Petersen -
Jerry James -
Neal Gompa -
Richard Fontana