On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 23:03 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
> > >>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway <Tom> writes:
> > TC> Given that it does not give permission for us to redistribute (the
> > TC> cornerstone requirement for Content licenses), this license is not
> > TC> acceptable for Fedora.
> > I guess I'm glad I looked before approving the package, but I have to
> > wonder: Do the cacert folks actually want anyone to use their
> > certificates? I mean, this prevents basically everyone from using
> > them, because they can't come with the OS or the browser.
> Personally, the more I read the document, the more I'm confused.
> "You may NOT distribute certificates or root keys under this
> licence"... does this mean we can distribute under a different license?
Well, sortof. The wording here is strange because you can get a
different license from the CA issuer. We can't just pick a license, but
the CA issuer might be willing to give us a different one.
> Would it be worth getting in contact with CAcert.org in order to try
> and have them allow us to redistribute the root certs under conditions
> which are acceptable to the Fedora Project?
Probably, yes. :)
I'd like to now if xBill is suitable for inclusion in Fedora:
License, as stated in the man entry, is GPL (no version specified).
My concerns regard the use of various logos in the game.
Also note that this game has been packaged until 2001 in Red Hat.
Samba4 (which is under review for inclusion into Fedora) will soon ship
some data (the Active Directory schema) under less-than-usual licence
The attached file gives the text.
I believe it is no less free than Free licences on Fonts that require
redistribution with software.
The review ticket is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083
If this causes a problem, presumably the packager can strip
setup/ad-schema (and the whole server implementation) from the tarball.
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
The license for the MgOpen fonts seems almost identical to the
Bistream Vera font license:
Currently our mgopen-fonts pacakge uses "Bitstream Vera" for its
license tag, but a query came up in IRC as to whether they really are
the same license. The Vera license included a note at the end, after
the ALL CAPS section, about the use of certain names in advertising
which the MgOpen license does not have, and the MgOpen license
included one additional phrase in the third paragraph:
"or if the modifications are accepted for inclusion in the Font
Software itself by the each appointed Administrator."
Are these licenses sufficiently identical to have the same License:
tag in Fedora?
I was looking to package Hylafax for fedora, and found that its
copyright is rather custom. It looks rather like a creative commons license,
but since IANAL, I wasn't 100% sure. Heres their copyright:
Does that qualify as an acceptible license to package for Fedora?
In PortableXDR  we have used some old (1988) Sun RPC code which has
the license text below. The question arose during review for
inclusion in Fedora what this license is, and whether it can be
included in Fedora.
Note that this code has been extensively used and modified all over
the place, so if this license isn't free, and if Sun didn't relicense
it since 1988, then we may have a problem.
For example, glibc:
also in FreeBSD:
* Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided for
* unrestricted use provided that this legend is included on all tape
* media and as a part of the software program in whole or part. Users
* may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized
* to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or
* program developed by the user.
* SUN RPC IS PROVIDED AS IS WITH NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND INCLUDING THE
* WARRANTIES OF DESIGN, MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
* PURPOSE, OR ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE OR TRADE PRACTICE.
* Sun RPC is provided with no support and without any obligation on the
* part of Sun Microsystems, Inc. to assist in its use, correction,
* modification or enhancement.
* SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE
* INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS, TRADE SECRETS OR ANY PATENTS BY SUN RPC
* OR ANY PART THEREOF.
* In no event will Sun Microsystems, Inc. be liable for any lost revenue
* or profits or other special, indirect and consequential damages, even if
* Sun has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
* Sun Microsystems, Inc.
* 2550 Garcia Avenue
* Mountain View, California 94043
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests.
We recently purchased a traffic shaping network device from a company
called Exinda. While the device performs quite well, from looking at a
firmware update image I noticed that it was based on Fedora Core.
Nowhere in their documentation is it mentioned they are using GPLed
software, and there is no offer to release source code. I opened a
ticket with them asking for code under the GPL but was ignored.
Would this be the appropriate place be to report such a violation?
Here is some of the text from the build script included with the
firmware image. The bulk of the image is GPG encrypted.
>>>>> "MS" == Matthias Saou <thias(a)spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net> writes:
MS> Would it be worth getting in contact with CAcert.org in order to
MS> try and have them allow us to redistribute the root certs under
MS> conditions which are acceptable to the Fedora Project?
Those conditions would have to be pretty liberal, since we insist that
anyone who gets the package from us also be able to distribute it. An
agreement that applies to the Fedora project isn't sufficient.
I don't see why they wouldn't want everyone to include their certs,
but there's no understanding it. The best thing to do would be to ask
For the following review :
I would need to know if the "Non Related Persons Disclaimer and
Licence" under which the CAcert root certificates files are is
acceptable for Fedora or not. Full text here :
What I see is that it only really applies to liability, and doesn't
cover modifications since those wouldn't make much sense. What does
bother me somewhat is the last part of the "License" section : "You may
NOT distribute certificates or root keys under this licence, nor make
representation about them." as well as the fact that liability might be
transferred to the Fedora Project if the certificates are shipped in
IANAL and I found nothing relevant in the "Licensing" wiki page, which
is why I'm posting here.
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora release 10 (Cambridge) - Linux kernel 126.96.36.199-117.fc10.x86_64
Load : 0.52 0.55 0.87