Thanks Richard,
I will follow that link and go through the right channels.
And yes, in many places, we have some GE/Honeywell code or documentation (which is Multics
licensed) in a comment block, for example describing a particular CPU function or
instruction, and then the actual (original) implementation following it.
While we *could* replace (hundreds) of these comments with text like "see manual AL39
Pg.125-127 and Fig B Pg.122", but that would make large portions of the code much
less readable and much less useful overall.
See
https://dps8m.gitlab.io/dps8m/master/global/S/45.html#L502 or
https://dps8m.gitlab.io/dps8m/master/global/S/37.html#L4587 for a few examples.
--
Jeffrey H. Johnson
trnsz(a)pobox.com
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024, at 7:39 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> 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
> --
> _______________________________________________
> legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
>
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue