Hi,
I would like to get the legal team's opinion on the EPICS Open License:
http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics/license/open.php
This licence is used for the Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System (EPICS):
More information about the licence can be found here:
http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics/license/index.php
Thanks,
Richard
On 03/06/2015 11:13 AM, Richard Fearn wrote:
Hi,
I would like to get the legal team's opinion on the EPICS Open License:
http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics/license/open.php
This licence is used for the Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System (EPICS):
More information about the licence can be found here:
Free and GPL compatible. Added to the Fedora license list. Please use "EPICS" in the License field for any package under these terms.
~tom
== Red Hat
"TC" == Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com writes:
TC> Free and GPL compatible.
Interesting. The clause about modified copies carrying prominent notices isn't completely clear to me. The GPL (v2, at least) requires that modified _source files_ carry a prominent notice (which is probably something with which few people actually comply) but this EPICS license is unclear as to whether it's the source files, the documentation, or the output of the program itself which must carry the notice.
My reading of the EPICS license would suggest that a README.Fedora file included in the usual location for documentation would be sufficient notice, but I'm no lawyer.
Still, for these "prominent notice" things, I wonder if there's any information anywhere about just how packagers should supply such notices or exactly what they should do to comply with such licenses. Does our method of supplying pristine source + patches take care of at least the GPL requirements? (I'm sure the smart folks have already thought of this, of course; I just don't know if it's written down anywhere.)
- J<
On 03/10/2015 12:00 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"TC" == Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com writes:
TC> Free and GPL compatible.
Interesting. The clause about modified copies carrying prominent notices isn't completely clear to me. The GPL (v2, at least) requires that modified _source files_ carry a prominent notice (which is probably something with which few people actually comply) but this EPICS license is unclear as to whether it's the source files, the documentation, or the output of the program itself which must carry the notice.
My reading of the EPICS license would suggest that a README.Fedora file included in the usual location for documentation would be sufficient notice, but I'm no lawyer.
Still, for these "prominent notice" things, I wonder if there's any information anywhere about just how packagers should supply such notices or exactly what they should do to comply with such licenses. Does our method of supplying pristine source + patches take care of at least the GPL requirements? (I'm sure the smart folks have already thought of this, of course; I just don't know if it's written down anywhere.)
I'd argue that Fedora's distribution/packaging method meets this requirement and would also meet the EPICS license requirement. That said, because the EPICS license is not entirely clear as to whether the "prominent notice" applies to both the source and the binary distribution, or simply to one or the other, if I were the packager of a work under the EPICS license, I would probably ask the upstream how and when they wish for the prominent notice to be applied.
This is roughly analogous to the "attribution" clause in the CC license family.
~tom
== Red Hat
"TC" == Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com writes:
TC> I'd argue that Fedora's distribution/packaging method meets this TC> requirement and would also meet the EPICS license requirement.
Cool, thanks. Is it worth writing this down anywhere? (Or did I miss where this was already written down?)
- J<
On 03/12/2015 02:38 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"TC" == Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com writes:
TC> I'd argue that Fedora's distribution/packaging method meets this TC> requirement and would also meet the EPICS license requirement.
Cool, thanks. Is it worth writing this down anywhere? (Or did I miss where this was already written down?)
Aside from the previous post? I don't believe this is written down anywhere. If someone thinks this data is useful, I could add it to the FAQ.
~tom
== Red Hat
"TC" == Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com writes:
TC> Aside from the previous post?
Yeah, sorry, I meant in our wiki or something. I guess it's not a big deal; it just seemed to me like at some point someone who cares might question some of these "prominent notice" clauses. But maybe I'm the only one who will ever care....
- J<
-
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Richard Fearn -
Tom Callaway