Re: Standard implementation of constant, copyright or not ?
Guilherme Brondani Torri <guitorri@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am currently maintaining the ADMS package (LGPL 2.1).
>
> The package is now hosted at:
> https://github.com/Qucs/ADMS
>
> The two headers that are causing us trouble are these:
> https://github.com/Qucs/ADMS/blob/master/admsXml/constants.vams
> https://github.com/Qucs/ADMS/blob/master/admsXml/disciplines.vams
>
> We received a request to update to the latest version of the headers. See:
> https://sourceforge.net/p/mot-adms/patches/4/
>
> The new headers from LRM 2.4.0 (May 2014), annex D. have the following
> copyright notice:
>
> // Copyright(c) 2009-2014 Accellera Systems Initiative Inc.
> // 1370 Trancas Street #163, Napa, CA 94558, USA.
> //
> // The material in disciplines.vams is an essential part of the Accellera
> Systems
> // Initiative ("Accellera") Verilog-AMS Language Standard. Verbatim copies of
> // the material in this Annex may be used and distributed without restriction.
> // All other uses require permission from Accellera IP Committee
> // (ipr-chair@lists.accellera.org).
> // All other rights reserved.
> //
> // Version 2.4.0
>
> How ADMS stand on this context?
>
> Can distribute at all the new headers?
>
> Does the new headers change anything with respect to Debian package inclusion
> policy?
The license for the new headers is not a free license. I think it
could go into non-free. You could, in principle, extract the
constants from NIST yourself. The disciplines.vams file is more
complicated, because it is not just constants. It looks like a number
of tolerances that have been chosen somewhat arbitrarily. Maybe you
could ask Accellera for a better license? IETF RFC's have the same
problem, and cause recurring problems for Debian.
https://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Reply to: