On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 5:01 PM Jeff Johnson <trnsz(a)pobox.com> wrote:
Greetings,
In hopes of eventually packaging DPS8M (
https://dps8m.gitlab.io), the 36‑bit GE Large
Systems / Honeywell / Bull 600/6000‑series mainframe computer simulator (and the
associated Multics operating system files), I'd like to request that some license
details be reviewed by the Fedora project.
Of the source code licenses used, only the Multics License is not currently listed as
allowed for Fedora. The Multics License is an OSI approved open source license (and a
Blue Oak Council Certified permissive license). See
https://opensource.org/license/multics-txt/ for details.
As an aside, the use of the Multics license in DPS8M might be unique amongst software
distributed by Fedora, if DPS8M would eventually be packaged. The Multics License covers
**only** some of the simulator’s source code comments, and is **not** applicable to
compiled object code or binary distributions of the simulator, so the compiled packages
would be allowed in Fedora, but not the source code, which would be a weird Catch-22
indeed.
To be sure I understand: you're saying that in this particular case,
the Multics license only covers *comments* (in the sense that, other,
non-comment elements of the source code of the simulator are covered
by other [Fedora-allowed] licenses)?
The license itself looks like it would be allowed (it's another
example of a legacy permissive license in the HPND family) but we
don't formally review and approve licenses on this list. You have to
follow the process described here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-review-process/
In addition, I'd like to request that the CF-GAL ([Copyfree]
General Attribution License) be allowed as a content and documentation license. See
https://gitlab.com/dps8m/dps8m/-/blob/master/LICENSES/LicenseRef-CF-GAL.txt for the
license text. This license originates from
https://copyfree.org/content/standard/licenses/gal/license.txt, and is a variant of the
SAL (
https://copyfree.org/content/standard/licenses/sal/license.txt) which is not specific
to software, and is similar to the already allowed zlib license. This license covers the
use of certain logos, artwork, and documentation.
This also looks like it would probably be allowed, but again you have
to follow the documented process for review of new licenses.
Richard