--- Comment #13 from Bernard Johnson <bjohnson(a)symetrix.com> 2009-11-30 05:13:50
(In reply to comment #12)
? What part of the code is Public Domain? Remember that, if a public
code gets compiled with a more restrictive license (well, any license is more
restrictive than public domain), the resulting binary will have the restrictive
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
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.
* This looks like free software. But the license contains the
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://email@example.com/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.