On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:13:08PM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote: > > > On 02/27/2018 03:03 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > > As of 2001, CP/M, originally from Digital Research, was released under a > > license that has been reported as open source: > > > > http://www.cpm.z80.de/license.html > > > > On the one hand, I'm concerned with the phrase "as part of the > > 'Unofficial CP/M Web Site", but on the other hand, that is immediately > > followed by "with its maintainers, developers and community", which > > seems broadly inclusive. > > > > Is this license satisfactory for Fedora? > > My reading is that this is a permissive open source license. I would > argue that Fedora, in the act of distributing the CP/M technology found > on the 'Unofficial CP/M Web Site', is part of the community (as well as > anyone downstream of Fedora). > > That said, the wording is weird, so I'm deferring to Richard. That is possibly the worst-written license I have seen in quite some time, but I actually think it is acceptable for Fedora for the reasons Tom and Eric gave. I am a little more concerned by the appearance of substantial sketchiness of the ownership situation, but a few minutes' research suggests bare minimum plausibility. Richard _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
