Curious why the absence of any kind of license grant isn't a non-starter ...
Pam On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 4:19 PM Richard Fontana <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 2:38 PM Mattia Verga > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The libpasastro package is going to bundle the NAIF/Spice toolkit from > Jet Propulsion Laboratory. > > The source code seems to be publicly available, no license file is > included with the code, but in the headers there's this license text: > > > > THIS SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS WERE CREATED BY THE > > CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (CALTECH) UNDER A U.S. > > GOVERNMENT CONTRACT WITH THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE > > ADMINISTRATION (NASA). THE SOFTWARE IS TECHNOLOGY AND SOFTWARE > > PUBLICLY AVAILABLE UNDER U.S. EXPORT LAWS AND IS PROVIDED "AS-IS" > > TO THE RECIPIENT WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ANY > > WARRANTIES OF PERFORMANCE OR MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A > > PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE (AS SET FORTH IN UNITED STATES UCC > > SECTIONS 2312-2313) OR FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER, FOR THE > > SOFTWARE AND RELATED MATERIALS, HOWEVER USED. > > > > IN NO EVENT SHALL CALTECH, ITS JET PROPULSION LABORATORY, OR NASA > > BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES AND/OR COSTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT > > LIMITED TO, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, > > INCLUDING ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR INJURY TO PROPERTY AND LOST PROFITS, > > REGARDLESS OF WHETHER CALTECH, JPL, OR NASA BE ADVISED, HAVE > > REASON TO KNOW, OR, IN FACT, SHALL KNOW OF THE POSSIBILITY. > > > > RECIPIENT BEARS ALL RISK RELATING TO QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF > > THE SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS, AND AGREES TO INDEMNIFY > > CALTECH AND NASA FOR ALL THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS RESULTING FROM THE > > ACTIONS OF RECIPIENT IN THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE. > > > > Is this license acceptable for inclusion in Fedora? I have a doubt about > the part "PUBLICLY AVAILABLE UNDER U.S. EXPORT LAWS"... > > My concern would be the "agree to indemnify" clause at the end. > Historically, Fedora has rejected several FOSS-like licenses because > of overbroad requirements to indemnify upstream licensors (there are > narrower ones in certain commonly-encountered FOSS licenses -- Apache > License 2.0, various versions of the MPL, and IIRC various members of > the EPL family -- that are treated as acceptable, if only because > they've been grandparented in). > > I'm open to being convinced that arbitrary indemnification obligations > should be acceptable in FOSS licenses, but I'm not aware that anyone > has yet made that argument. > > Richard > _______________________________________________ > legal mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > 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/[email protected] >
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected]
