http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342
--- Comment #13 from Bernard Johnson <[email protected]> 2009-11-30 05:13:50 --- (In reply to comment #12) > ? What part of the code is Public Domain? Remember that, if a public domain > code gets compiled with a more restrictive license (well, any license is more > restrictive than public domain), the resulting binary will have the > restrictive > license. sha1.c is public domain. Because the package should reflect the license of the resulting binary, I have changed the license to "BSD and QUALCOMM". > * I believe that the COPYING file must go to the libs package because that is > the base package (the other packages require it), so if someone installs any > tivodecode-X package we make sure that he gets a COPYING file. Agreed. > * This looks like free software. But the license contains the phrases: > > All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this > software must display the following acknowledgement: This product > includes software developed by QUALCOMM Incorporated. > > ... any commercial product utilising any of the Turing family of encryption > algorithms should show the words "Encryption by QUALCOMM" either on the > product or in the associated documentation. > > These make me think that the software might be considered nonfree. > So Fedora Legal denies this package due to patent issues but what did Fedora > Legal say about the freedom of this software? Is it free or nonfree? There was no comment regarding free vs non-free by Fedora Legal - simply that they didn't want tivodecode in Fedora because of other concerns. That comment is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00225.html Is it the "any commercial product..." phrase that you are concerned about? An additional restriction for commercial software? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
