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 _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
