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.
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.
I apologize if I've misrouted this request, and if so, please let me know the most appropriate way to submit the GAL and Multics licenses for consideration.
-- Jeffrey H. Johnson trnsz@pobox.com
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 5:01 PM Jeff Johnson trnsz@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
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@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@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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@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
-
Jeff Johnson -
Richard Fontana