[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: My open tickets in bugzilla.fedora.us



I looked into your two packages and the Bugzilla history. Some comments below.

Gianluca Sforna wrote:
I have a couple of pending package requests in bugzilla.fedora.us:
https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2329

Compton is a long time trusted contributor, so we can fast track this into FC3 Extras now that we are no longer stuck on the valgrind issue. As for maintainership of the package in Extras, being a package owner does NOT automatically give you the right to full CVS access. You would need to convince one of the existing "Trusted" contributors to sponsor your membership and take responsibility if anything goes wrong.


(When the account management system is written though, then we can probably give CVS access to many more people with commit access to their own packages only, until they become sponsored.)

So anyway, I will personally review this package and import it this week.

and
https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2398

IANAL, but the license issues surrounding this software are confusing and possibly problematic.


http://www.tecn.upf.es/openMOIV/openmoiv/license.html
"Because OpenMOIV is a derived product of Molecular Inventor (you can consider OpenMOIV as a modification of Molecular Inventor), you need to accept two licenses in order to use it: the original license from Silicon Graphics (applicable to the initial source code) and the GNU/LGPL license for our modifications and improvements."


"Molecular Inventor License" has language like "non-transferable and non-exclusive" and "Licensee shall not assign or otherwise transfer its rights or obligations under this License Agreement without the prior written consent..." To my non-lawyer eyes, this sounds contradictory to the GPL or LGPL, where it is very important that rights are transferrable.

It is one thing to dual-license software, the copyright holder can release software under different licenses, however if OpenMOIV explicitly says that you must accept BOTH licenses, then it sounds horribly problematic. However...

http://oss.sgi.com/projects/inventor/license.html
http://freshmeat.net/projects/openinventor/

From the looks of it though, here SGI explicitly states "LGPL" as the license for Open Inventor with no mention of the "Molecular Inventor" license. So it may be possible that OpenMOIV is just confused in their licensing statement?

In any case we need to clear this up in order to move forward. Please find more information (URL's) about this situation so we can summarize the legal question for submission to Red Hat's legal queue. They will give us a 'yes' or 'no'.

Warren Togami
wtogami redhat com


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]