https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323966 John Dulaney <jdulaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #6 from John Dulaney <jdulaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Nick Coghlan from comment #2) > Unfortunately, I found a potentially "fun" licensing problem with the USB > code in stmhal/usbhost: https://github.com/micropython/micropython/issues/26 > > Specifically, the code in that directory is under > http://www.st.com/web/en/resource/legal/legal_agreement/license_agreement/ > ultimate-liberty-v2.txt?sc=software_license_agreement_liberty_v2 which isn't > an open source license > > The notice of that license in the source tarball is in > stmhal/usbhost/Release_Notes.html > > The other slightly dubious piece in the embedded system parts of the tarball > is what looks to be a pre-built binary at > cc3200/bootmanager/relocator/relocator.bin > > The MicroPython-for-Unix build doesn't *use* any of those pieces, but I'm > not sure of the potential implications of having them in the SRPM. Should > this BZ be set to block FE-Legal to ask them the question? I went ahead and did so, better to be certain. > > A couple of other items worth taking a second look at: > > - fedora-review complained about the LICENSE file being marked as %doc > instead of %license > Oops, I will fix that. I had grabbed the spec from the previous review. > - there's a micropython-upip tarball embedded in the tools directory which I > haven't looked inside yet > > > (I'm still working through the rest of the review checklist, but figured it > made sense to raise these items immediately rather than waiting) (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #5) > > The MicroPython-for-Unix build doesn't *use* any of those pieces, but I'm not > > sure of the potential implications of having them in the SRPM. Should this BZ > > be set to block FE-Legal to ask them the question? > > My reading of the license says that it is fine to have the file in SRPM: the > license allows free copying, but limits *use* ("only on our crappy > hardware"). As long as that file or anything built from it is not included > in the binary rpms, it is not possible to violate the license. > To make sure that it is not used, remove the file in %prep. > > > relocator.bin > > https://github.com/micropython/micropython/commit/ > f8146d021ba933034e7a6244e4267a6626357cf7 > > I think we can treat this as "firmware" > [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Binary_Firmware], and > distribute it. It must have the right license though. I will ask upstream about the nature of this, though it doesn't actually get included in the 'Unix' build. If need be, I can remove it via patch. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx