MMIX is the successor to Donald Knuth's MIX machine in later editions of The Art of Computer Programming. The canonical software implementation is made available with the following license:
http://mmix.cs.hm.edu/websvn/wsvn/MMIX/mmixware/trunk/boilerplate.w
While the wording is different from the same author's license on TeX (approved as the "Knuth license"), the intent appears to be the same.
Is this acceptable for Fedora, and what name should be used?
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:12:06PM -0500, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
MMIX is the successor to Donald Knuth's MIX machine in later editions of The Art of Computer Programming. The canonical software implementation is made available with the following license:
http://mmix.cs.hm.edu/websvn/wsvn/MMIX/mmixware/trunk/boilerplate.w
While the wording is different from the same author's license on TeX (approved as the "Knuth license"), the intent appears to be the same.
Is this acceptable for Fedora, and what name should be used?
The interesting part is this: "Changes are permissible only if the modified file is given a new name, different from the names of existing files in the {\ninett MMIX}ware package, and only if the modified file is clearly identified as not being part of that package."
This is reminiscent of a feature of the LaTeX Project Public License 1.2 of which the FSF said:
This license contains complex and annoying restrictions on how to publish a modified version, including one requirement that falls just barely on the good side of the line of what is acceptable: that any modified file must have a new name.
The reason this requirement is acceptable for LaTeX is that TeX has a facility to allow you to map file names, to specify “use file bar when file foo is requested”. With this facility, the requirement is merely annoying; without the facility, the same requirement would be a serious obstacle, and we would have to conclude it makes the program nonfree.
I assume in this context there is nothing corresponding to the filename mapping facility.
Richard
On 2016-03-25 12:23, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:12:06PM -0500, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
MMIX is the successor to Donald Knuth's MIX machine in later editions of The Art of Computer Programming. The canonical software implementation is made available with the following license:
http://mmix.cs.hm.edu/websvn/wsvn/MMIX/mmixware/trunk/boilerplate.w
While the wording is different from the same author's license on TeX (approved as the "Knuth license"), the intent appears to be the same.
Is this acceptable for Fedora, and what name should be used?
The interesting part is this: "Changes are permissible only if the modified file is given a new name, different from the names of existing files in the {\ninett MMIX}ware package, and only if the modified file is clearly identified as not being part of that package."
This is reminiscent of a feature of the LaTeX Project Public License 1.2 of which the FSF said:
This license contains complex and annoying restrictions on how to publish a modified version, including one requirement that falls just barely on the good side of the line of what is acceptable: that any modified file must have a new name.
The reason this requirement is acceptable for LaTeX is that TeX has a facility to allow you to map file names, to specify “use file bar when file foo is requested”. With this facility, the requirement is merely annoying; without the facility, the same requirement would be a serious obstacle, and we would have to conclude it makes the program nonfree.
I assume in this context there is nothing corresponding to the filename mapping facility.
No, but OTOH MMIX is just a standalone program, not a set of macros meant for inclusion like LaTeX is, so I'm not sure that this is comparable one way or the other. IANAL but I suspect the *intention* was (particularly given the author's wording on his other major work) that anyone is free to modify but they may not then call it "MMIX". Note that, aside from the license boilerplate, the source files correspond to the program names, so one practically necessitates the other.
There is also mention of using CWEB change-files in both the license and the README. Therefore, this could be interpreted as a rule about *how* the files should be modified, not if, which is acceptable to the FSF:
"However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable ... it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours."
On 2016-03-25 12:55, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On 2016-03-25 12:23, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:12:06PM -0500, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
MMIX is the successor to Donald Knuth's MIX machine in later editions of The Art of Computer Programming. The canonical software implementation is made available with the following license:
http://mmix.cs.hm.edu/websvn/wsvn/MMIX/mmixware/trunk/boilerplate.w
While the wording is different from the same author's license on TeX (approved as the "Knuth license"), the intent appears to be the same.
Is this acceptable for Fedora, and what name should be used?
The interesting part is this: "Changes are permissible only if the modified file is given a new name, different from the names of existing files in the {\ninett MMIX}ware package, and only if the modified file is clearly identified as not being part of that package."
This is reminiscent of a feature of the LaTeX Project Public License 1.2 of which the FSF said:
This license contains complex and annoying restrictions on how to publish a modified version, including one requirement that falls just barely on the good side of the line of what is acceptable: that any modified file must have a new name.
The reason this requirement is acceptable for LaTeX is that TeX has a facility to allow you to map file names, to specify “use file bar when file foo is requested”. With this facility, the requirement is merely annoying; without the facility, the same requirement would be a serious obstacle, and we would have to conclude it makes the program nonfree.
I assume in this context there is nothing corresponding to the filename mapping facility.
No, but OTOH MMIX is just a standalone program, not a set of macros meant for inclusion like LaTeX is, so I'm not sure that this is comparable one way or the other. IANAL but I suspect the *intention* was (particularly given the author's wording on his other major work) that anyone is free to modify but they may not then call it "MMIX". Note that, aside from the license boilerplate, the source files correspond to the program names, so one practically necessitates the other.
There is also mention of using CWEB change-files in both the license and the README. Therefore, this could be interpreted as a rule about *how* the files should be modified, not if, which is acceptable to the FSF:
"However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable ... it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours."
Ping?
On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 01:16:51AM -0500, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On 2016-03-25 12:55, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On 2016-03-25 12:23, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:12:06PM -0500, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
MMIX is the successor to Donald Knuth's MIX machine in later editions of The Art of Computer Programming. The canonical software implementation is made available with the following license:
http://mmix.cs.hm.edu/websvn/wsvn/MMIX/mmixware/trunk/boilerplate.w
While the wording is different from the same author's license on TeX (approved as the "Knuth license"), the intent appears to be the same.
Is this acceptable for Fedora, and what name should be used?
The interesting part is this: "Changes are permissible only if the modified file is given a new name, different from the names of existing files in the {\ninett MMIX}ware package, and only if the modified file is clearly identified as not being part of that package."
This is reminiscent of a feature of the LaTeX Project Public License 1.2 of which the FSF said:
This license contains complex and annoying restrictions on how to publish a modified version, including one requirement that falls just barely on the good side of the line of what is acceptable: that any modified file must have a new name.
The reason this requirement is acceptable for LaTeX is that TeX has a facility to allow you to map file names, to specify “use file bar when file foo is requested”. With this facility, the requirement is merely annoying; without the facility, the same requirement would be a serious obstacle, and we would have to conclude it makes the program nonfree.
I assume in this context there is nothing corresponding to the filename mapping facility.
No, but OTOH MMIX is just a standalone program, not a set of macros meant for inclusion like LaTeX is, so I'm not sure that this is comparable one way or the other. IANAL but I suspect the *intention* was (particularly given the author's wording on his other major work) that anyone is free to modify but they may not then call it "MMIX". Note that, aside from the license boilerplate, the source files correspond to the program names, so one practically necessitates the other.
There is also mention of using CWEB change-files in both the license and the README. Therefore, this could be interpreted as a rule about *how* the files should be modified, not if, which is acceptable to the FSF:
"However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable ... it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours."
Ping?
I don't think this can be considered a free software license because of the file renaming condition. Hence I don't think it meets Fedora's current policies around acceptable licenses.
Richard