Hi,
Could you please clarify if the Trusster [1] Open Source License is an acceptable Free/Open Source Software License for the Fedora project. The Teal [2] project uses this license:
=== BEGIN ===
Trusster Open Source License version 1.0a (TRUST) copyright (c) 2006 Mike Mintz and Robert Ekendahl. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how to obtain complete source code for this software and any accompanying software that uses this software. The source code must either be included in the distribution or be available in a timely fashion for no more than the cost of distribution plus a nominal fee, and must be freely redistributable under reasonable and no more restrictive conditions. For an executable file, complete source code means the source code for all modules it contains. It does not include source code for modules or files that typically accompany the major components of the operating system on which the executable file runs.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY MIKE MINTZ AND ROBERT EKENDAHL ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT, ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL MIKE MINTZ AND ROBERT EKENDAHL OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
=== END ===
Thanks!
SK
[1] Trustter. http://www.trusster.com [2] Teal. A Verification Utility and Connection Library. http://www.trusster.com/products/teal/
On 12/30/2009 01:53 AM, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
Hi,
Could you please clarify if the Trusster [1] Open Source License is an acceptable Free/Open Source Software License for the Fedora project. The Teal [2] project uses this license:
The Trusster Open Source License is Free, but GPL incompatible. I've added it to the Fedora approved licenses list, please use:
License: TOSL
~spot
Hi,
--- On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote: | The Trusster Open Source License is Free, but GPL incompatible. I've | added it to the Fedora approved licenses list, please use: | | License: TOSL --
Thanks for your quick and prompt response!
SK
Hi,
--- On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote: | The Trusster Open Source License is Free, but GPL incompatible. I've | added it to the Fedora approved licenses list, please use: | | License: TOSL --
Can you please let me know what is meant here by "GPL incompatible", or what is not possible when using TOSL?
I have been able to package the Teal tool (released under TOSL) for Fedora. It provides a framework for verification of source code. Hence, test suites written using this framework also have to "include" project source code files. Please CMIIW:
1. If the project source code is released under GPL and the test suites use TOSL, can we still use them with Teal?
2. What if the project source code is released under LGPLv2+, can we still use Teal as long as the test suites are also released under TOSL?
Please clarify,
Thanks!
SK
Hi,
I checked with the TOSL authors from Trusster, and here is their reply:
=== QUOTE ===
Yes, our license is the SleepyCat one...
> 1. The verification framework is under TOSL. The *.cpp testbench > written for an RTL project also needs to be under TOSL?
Nope. Any project a customer does is totally owned by them in whatever license they want.
> 2. Can the *.cpp testbench be in TOSL while the RTL project source > code be released in LGPLv2+ or GPL?
Yes.
I see that in the examples you "include" the RTL sources, but, does that involve compilation between TOSL framework code and RTL LGPLV2+ code?
Yes.
The idea behind TOSL was to encourage others to use it, but not require that their work be in open source.
=== END ===
So, if I ship examples that use GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+, can I use the following in License at teal.spec?
License: TOSL and (GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+)
Do let me know your views. Thanks!
SK
On 07/06/2010 09:03 AM, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
Hi,
--- On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote: | The Trusster Open Source License is Free, but GPL incompatible. I've | added it to the Fedora approved licenses list, please use: | | License: TOSL --
Can you please let me know what is meant here by "GPL incompatible", or what is not possible when using TOSL?
It means that you cannot take a library which is under TOSL and combine it with files under the GPL, as the result is incompatible.
I have been able to package the Teal tool (released under TOSL) for Fedora. It provides a framework for verification of source code. Hence, test suites written using this framework also have to "include" project source code files. Please CMIIW:
- If the project source code is released under GPL and the test
suites use TOSL, can we still use them with Teal?
Assuming the files are combined as you describe, the answer is no.
- What if the project source code is released under LGPLv2+, can we
still use Teal as long as the test suites are also released under TOSL?
LGPLv2+ is generally considered to be compatible with most licenses, I doubt there is any problem with this combination.
~spot
Hi Tom:
--- On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote: | It means that you cannot take a library which is under TOSL and combine | it with files under the GPL, as the result is incompatible. | | LGPLv2+ is generally considered to be compatible with most licenses, I | doubt there is any problem with this combination. --
Thanks for your prompt reply. Appreciate it!
SK
Hi Tom:
--- On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote: | It means that you cannot take a library which is under TOSL and combine | it with files under the GPL, as the result is incompatible. | | LGPLv2+ is generally considered to be compatible with most licenses, I | doubt there is any problem with this combination. --
Upstream is now willing to release their software, Teal, with a LGPLv2+ license. They want to know if them sending an e-mail is sufficient for us to package the same for Fedora, or anything else is required?
I suggested that it will good if they could mention and include the LGPLv2+ license information in the source code.
Any thoughts?
SK
On 07/07/2010 11:01 AM, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
Hi Tom:
--- On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote: | It means that you cannot take a library which is under TOSL and combine | it with files under the GPL, as the result is incompatible. | | LGPLv2+ is generally considered to be compatible with most licenses, I | doubt there is any problem with this combination. --
Upstream is now willing to release their software, Teal, with a LGPLv2+ license. They want to know if them sending an e-mail is sufficient for us to package the same for Fedora, or anything else is required?
Nope, that's fine. Just include a copy of the email where they give permission for use under the LGPLv2+ terms as a Source file in the Teal package, and include it as %doc.
I suggested that it will good if they could mention and include the LGPLv2+ license information in the source code.
If they do this, you do not need to include their email in the package.
~spot
Tom:
--- On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote: | Just include a copy of the email where they give | permission for use under the LGPLv2+ terms as a Source file in the Teal | package, and include it as %doc. --
Upstream has provided the same, and I have the package up for review at:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612384
Thanks for your help!
SK
-
Shakthi Kannan -
Tom Callaway