I can’t speak in any official capacity, but I can point out that it
looks non-free based on the “This document may not be modified in any
way […]” portion.
A number of software, documentation, and font licenses have been held to
be unacceptable for restricting or prohibiting modifications in the
past. Search https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main for “modif”
to find examples. There appears to be an exception for binary firmware
blobs, which does not apply here.
– Ben Beasley
On 5/30/21 12:00 PM, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
Hello,
In a review I came across this License:
© Copyright 2000 UserLand Software, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
© Copyright 2006-2007 Scripting News, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
UserLand Software, Inc. and Scripting News, Inc. are refererred to in
the following as "the Companies."
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and these paragraphs are
included on all such copies and derivative works.
This document may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the
copyright notice or references to the Companies or other
organizations. Further, while these copyright restrictions apply to
the written OPML specification, no claim of ownership is made by the
Companies to the format it describes. Any party may, for commercial or
non-commercial purposes, implement this format without royalty or
license fee to the Companies. The limited permissions granted herein
are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Companies or their
successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE COMPANIES DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
I've found some RFC example like:
http://dev.opml.org/spec1.html
https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec21.html
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2549
It seems to refer to translation these specifications.
I don't know the name of that license. Can anyone identify it and tell
me if it's acceptable in Fedora?
Best regards,
Robert-André
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
