-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
License header clarification #37
Comments
First and foremost, thank you for packaging this for Fedora! Regarding licensing, I was under the impression that the entire codebase (from the original SPASM) is GPLv2. That said, I just confirmed from their GitHub that it is indeed GPLv2 (see: official website admin linking to the repo and LICENSE on said repo). Combining the contributions to form SPASM-ng, this project as a whole should be pretty much GPLv2, with the exceptions you've listed above. The only major licensing issue left is the inc/ directory. I got the source files from the Wabbit IDE website, which would presumably make the inc/ files (at least, the SPASM helper includes) GPLv2. However, considering that developers use the includes, this might not make too much sense... since technically the developers using SPASM-ng are not necessarily licensing their program as GPLv2 (and many traditionally have not). We'll need to ask the original developers about this (or do more hunting for a potential license). Finally, the more interesting files in there: the inc/ti*.inc includes. I found a more complete license header here, but the license seems very vague. It only lists what you can't do, not what you can (permission). We will have to locate the original package that had the ti83plus.inc include in order to see what the EULA had to say about it. |
The original source for the include files would be the official SDK (Wayback machine link because education.ti.com is 503ing for me right now). However, that same page has a direct link to ti83plus.inc as a separate item so it's unclear if the license for the entire SDK applies to that file as well. |
So, I tried to open the License there but just got a redirect back to the original page. Are you able to actually view the license terms via the Wayback Machine? If so, could you paste them? |
You can view the source of the page to see it ;)
|
Well... that doesn't seem promising, if it does apply to the include file. EDIT: I wrote legal@lists.fedoraproject.org about the license terms on ti83plus.inc last night; someone suggested in a response that might be possible to get in touch with TI directly and straighten out the licensing here? I'm not sure that's likely to be helpful though. |
I'm not sure the whole SDK license applies to the .inc file though. THey're talking about "installing the SDK" and whatnot ; it's not like you can install a text file. |
I think the only way it would apply is if it fell under the heading of "any related documentation". But I agree, I'm not sure either. Also, here's a link to the discussion on the Fedora legal list. |
I think we may need to email TI to ask for clarification, as this may be the only way to know for sure. (It looks like the idea of doing that was mentioned on @TC01's link!) If they are still sticking to that license, maybe potentially ask really, really nicely to open source it under a liberal license... |
I've been working on getting spasm-ng packaged for Fedora. A question has come up in the package review, namely: while the license file is a copy of GPLv2, there aren't actually license headers on most of the files in the repo.
I was asked to seek clarification.
Are all the files that aren't part of either stringencoders, gmp, the generated Visual Studio files, and the actual z80 assembly includes actually under the GPL? If so, any chance license headers could be added?
That is to say, everything but:
Clarification would be greatly appreciated. I'd like to have a z80 assembler available in Fedora.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: