Comment 35 for bug 1716924

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.