This might be problematic in that case. The license that the user is
asked to accept when running one of the cxlflash scripts seems to be
written in a way that makes the resulting binaries no longer Apache 2.0
licensed. I am not a licensing expert, but when users need to accept a
license that seems to prohibit the user of using the 'Program' with any
other hardware, as well as seemingly limit the ability to redistribute
or modify (and others), the resulting software doesn't seem to be free
software anymore. For us to consider the package and its binaries being
Apache 2.0 would mean the binaries being licensed in the same (or
compatible) way. I might be reading this wrong, but the shipped license
files do not seem to address the 'hardware usage' but the "Program"
usage - which I guess in this case would mean the binaries that are
present in cxlflash. Although I might be misunderstanding something.

I would certainly like to get this clarified with someone more
experienced in free-software licensing and legal.

As the package stands right now I guess it could still be accepted into
multiverse, if needed, since it right now it doesn't comply to
universe/main.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1716924

Title:
  [needs-packaging] [Ubuntu 18.04 FEAT] Include cxlflash package in
  Ubuntu

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-power-systems/+bug/1716924/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to