While checking the contents of our `perl' package, I noticed the following:
/* NOTE: this is derived from Henry Spencer's regexp code, and should not
* confused with the original package (see point 3 below). Thanks, Henry!
/* Additional note: this code is very heavily munged from Henry's version
* in places. In some spots I've traded clarity for efficiency, so don't
* blame Henry for some of the lack of readability.
/* The names of the functions have been changed from regcomp and
* regexec to pregcomp and pregexec in order to avoid conflicts
* with the POSIX routines of the same names.
* pregcomp and pregexec -- regsub and regerror are not used in perl
* Copyright (c) 1986 by University of Toronto.
* Written by Henry Spencer. Not derived from licensed software.
* Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any
* purpose on any computer system, and to redistribute it freely,
* subject to the following restrictions:
* 1. The author is not responsible for the consequences of use of
* this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise
* from defects in it.
* 2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either
* by explicit claim or by omission.
* 3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not
* be misrepresented as being the original software.
**** Alterations to Henry's code are...
**** Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
**** 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
**** by Larry Wall and others
**** You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
**** License or the Artistic License, as specified in the README file.
You can see the whole file here:
I looked but couldn't find any common name for this license
of Henry's. Is it on our list? Is it free? What name should
I use in the License tag?
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 23:03 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
> > >>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway <Tom> writes:
> > TC> Given that it does not give permission for us to redistribute (the
> > TC> cornerstone requirement for Content licenses), this license is not
> > TC> acceptable for Fedora.
> > I guess I'm glad I looked before approving the package, but I have to
> > wonder: Do the cacert folks actually want anyone to use their
> > certificates? I mean, this prevents basically everyone from using
> > them, because they can't come with the OS or the browser.
> Personally, the more I read the document, the more I'm confused.
> "You may NOT distribute certificates or root keys under this
> licence"... does this mean we can distribute under a different license?
Well, sortof. The wording here is strange because you can get a
different license from the CA issuer. We can't just pick a license, but
the CA issuer might be willing to give us a different one.
> Would it be worth getting in contact with CAcert.org in order to try
> and have them allow us to redistribute the root certs under conditions
> which are acceptable to the Fedora Project?
Probably, yes. :)
The GPL Compatibility Matrix  says statements like:
"I want to release a project under:",
"I want to copy code under:" and
"I want to use (link to) a library under:"
I found this terribly confusing. While majority of FOSS projects have a
lot of binaries and libraries, each of them might be licensed differently.
I suggest to change that wording to:
"I want to release a part of project (e.g. binary or library) under:"
And similarly for the remaining parts of  wiki page. Sorry if I missed
some important fact.
We are packaging neuroimaging research tools for a new SIG. There are two packages that are very widely used that we could use some advice on.
The first is FreeSurfer - https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/ which has this license:
The second is FSL - http://fsl.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl/fslwiki/http://fsl.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl/fslwiki/Licence
I know that neurodebian packages FSL with the following header:
This package is autobuildable by the Debian buildd network as it's license
imposes no restrictions on reproduction, modification, transmission or
transference as long as there is no financial return (see license below).
neurodebian also started packaging FreeSurfer but it was never completed. To do so I know they removed a few tools that are mentioned as falling under a separate license (tkmedit, tksurfer, etc.). I will find out more about why they abandoned this effort as their github repository for it has been deleted.
Thanks in advance for your time.
I would like to ask if MP3 patents in the US have expired. Based on my
analysis, I believe that the MP3 (MPEG-1 Layer III) patents have
expired. While it is possible I have calculated the dates wrong, I have
double checked them, and I have provided my reasoning and examined how
the previous patent expiration calculations were done.
Of the ones listed in the email to fedora devel:
Here are the ones that are not expired based on that email:
US Patent 5703999 expires November 18, 2016
US Patent 5924060 expires July 13, 2016
US Patent RE39,080 expires April 25, 2023.
US Patent 6009399 expires April 16, 2017
US Patent 6185539 expires February 6, 2018
I believe that all the other patents listed in that email have expired.
I would like to discuss each of them.
For calculating the patent term, I am primarily using the information at:
Claim: US Patent 5703999 expires November 18, 2016
My belief: US Patent 5703999 expired at the latest on December 30, 2014.
The November 18, 2016 expiration was calculated from 20 years after the
filing date of November 18, 1996.
However, this patent is actually a continuation of application Ser. No.
08/338,618, filed as PCT/DE93/00448 May 18, 1993.
Because it is a continuation the original date of May 8, 1993 needs to
be looked at. Therefore it contains a specific reference to an earlier
filed patent, so by 35 U.S.C. 154, the term is 20 years from the "from
the date on which the earliest such application was filed. " This would
be May 8, 2013.
However because the international application was filed before June 8,
1995, the patent may be one with "the greater of the “twenty-year term”
or seventeen years from the patent grant. '999 was granted on December
30, 1997, so 17 years would be December 30, 2014.
So the actual date US Patent 5703999 expires may be December 30, 2014.
So US Patent 5703999 expires at the latest on December 30, 2014 so this
patent is expired.
Filed: 18 nov 1996 Granted: 30 dec 1997 Expiration: 32 feb 2015
Summary: Process for reducing data in the transmission and/or storage
of digital signals from several interdependent channels Notes:
[2016, 11, 18] related_patent+20:[2015, 2, 32]
Claim: US Patent 5924060 expires July 13, 2016
My belief: US Patent 5924060 expired either April 4, 2011 or August 29, 2007
The July 13, 2016 expiration was calculated as 17 years after the grant
date of July 13, 1999.
However this is a continuing application. "A patent granted on a
continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application that was
filed on or after June 8, 1995, will have a term which ends twenty years
from the filing date of earliest application for which a benefit is
claimed " Since the continuation was filed on March 20, 1997, the date
should be 20 years from the first filing date. This is I believe is
either Ser. No. 07/177,550, filed on Apr. 4, 1991 or application serial
No. PCT/DE87/00384, filed Aug. 29, 1987. These have 20 year dates of
April 4, 2011 or August 29, 2007. Both of these dates have passed, so
this patent is now expired.
Filed: 20 mar 1997 Granted: 13 jul 1999 Expiration: 14 jan 2011
First Date: 14 jan 1991
Summary: Digital coding process for transmission or storage of
acoustical signals by transforming of scanning values into spectral
file+20: [2017, 3, 20] related_patent+20:[2011, 1, 14]
This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/650,896,
filed on May 17, 1996, (now abandoned) which was a continuation of
application Ser. No. 08/519,620, filed on Sep. 25, 1995, (now abandoned)
which was a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/977,748, filed on Nov.
16, 1992, (now abandoned), which was a continuation of application Ser.
No. 07/816,528, filed on Dec. 30, 1991, (now abandoned), which was a
continuation of application Ser. No. 07/640,550, filed on Jan. 14, 1991,
(now abandoned), which was a continuation of application Ser. No.
07/177,550, filed on Apr. 4, 1991, (now abandoned) as international
application serial No. PCT/DE87/00384, filed Aug. 29, 1987, claiming
priority to foreign appl. No. P3629434.9, filed Aug. 29, 1986.
Claim: US Patent RE39,080 expires April 25, 2023.
My belief: US Patent RE39,080 expired May 6, 2014.
This expiration was calculated as 17 years from the grant date of the
reissue of April 25, 2006
However it is a reissue of Patent 5627938. From
"The maximum term of the original patent is fixed at the time the patent
is granted. While the term may be subsequently shortened, e.g., through
the filing of a terminal disclaimer, it cannot be extended through the
filing of a reissue. "
So we need to calculate the term of the of 5627938. This is a
continuation of application Ser. No. 07/844,811, filed on Mar. 2, 1992.
5627938 was granted on May 6, 1997. 5627938 was filed before June 8,
1995, its term is the greater of 17 years from grant or 20 years from
first filing date. So these are May 6, 2014 or March 2, 2012, so the
expiration is May 6, 2014. This date has passed, so this patent is
Filed: 22 sep 1994 Granted: 06 may 1997 Expiration: 06 may 2014
Summary: Rate loop processor for perceptual encoder/decoder Notes:
Reissue of 05627938 filed 13 aug 2002 granted 25 apr 2006
[2014, 9, 22] related_patent+20:[2008, 12, 32] grant+17:[2014, 5, 6]
Claim: US Patent 6009399 is required for MP3.
My belief: US Patent 6009399 is not an MP3 patent.
'399 was filed in April 16, 1997, with a related foreign patent filed in
April 26, 1996. Both these dates are well after the MP3 specification
came out. ISO/IEC 11172-3 was published in August 1993, so the
specification is prior art. Secondly, looking at the claims, they are
using two or more psycho acoustic models. MP3 encoding can be done with
one psycho acoustic model, so I believe it is possible to create an MP3
encoder that does not infringe this patent.
Claim: US Patent 6185539 is required for MP3
My belief: US Patent 6185539 is not an MP3 patent
'539 was filed in May 26, 1998 with a PCT filed in February 19, 1997.
Both these dates are well after the MP3 specification came out. ISO/IEC
11172-3 was published in August 1993, Secondly, looking at the claims,
most of them mention being a modification of ISO/IEC 13818-3:1995 which
is the MPEG-2 specification. The description claims that it is an
enhancement to allow low bit rate encoding of ISO/IEC 13878-3 (MPEG2
layer 3). So I believe that this is at best an enhancement of MPEG-2
I'm packaging CPAN module Unix::Mknod to Fedora.
I am not sure about the license below.
Is it MIT?
Could you please help me find the proper license?
Copyright (c) 2005-2008 University of Illinois Board of Trustees
All rights reserved.
Developed by: Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
``Software''), to deal with the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
the following conditions:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the names of Campus Information Technologies and Educational
Services, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, nor the names
of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
from this Software without specific prior written permission.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'', WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE CONTRIBUTORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR
ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE
OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS WITH THE SOFTWARE.