legal November 2009

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

23 participants
19 discussions

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CAcert.org license
by Tom Callaway 12 Feb '16

12 Feb '16

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. :) ~spot

4 6

Serna GPL exception
by Rahul Sundaram 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

Hi Is this exception ok for Fedora? http://www.syntext.com/legal/SernaFree-GPL-EXCEPTION.txt Rahul

2 1

New License
by Tareq Al Jurf 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

Hi I'm trying to get certification for a new license which is newly written Can you point me where to start Thanks in advance -- Tareq Al Jurf Fedora Ambassador Riyadh, Saudi Arabia taljurf(a)fedoraproject.org

2 1

eclipse and php require GPLV2+
by Julius Davies 29 Nov '09

29 Nov '09

Hi, I was looking at the some of the dependencies generated by AutoReqProv in the RPMS in Fedora 11 and I noticed the following: eclipse-swt (epl) requires: libxpcom.so provided-by: nspluginwrapper (gplv2+) php-cli (php) requires: libreadline.so provided-by: readline (gplv2+) How is this possible? I don't think EPL or PHP licenses are allowed to dynamically link to GPLV2+ libraries. I see that neither of these dependency problems exist in RHEL 5.4 (eclipse-swt is known as libswt3-gtk2 in RHEL 5.4). ps. I'm a B.Sc. student doing a research project on licensing problems in open source linux distros, so I'm excited to see if my techniques have actually found some real life licensing problems. -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) 250-893-4579 (Mobile) http://juliusdavies.ca/logging.html

4 7

FC12: wireshark: GPLv2 and GPLv3+
by Julius Davies 29 Nov '09

29 Nov '09

GPLv2,GPLv2+ wireshark-1.2.2/epan/dissectors/packet-dlm3.c GPLv3+ wireshark-1.2.2/tools/pidl/lib/Parse/Pidl/Samba4/Template.pm The strict GPLv2 in packet-dlm3.c is coming from this: /* * #defines are mostly copied from * *.[ch] files in linux/fs/dlm/ and linux/include/linux/dlm.h * * dlm_internal.h: * ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Copyright (C) Sistina Software, Inc. 1997-2003 All rights reserved. ** Copyright (C) 2004-2005 Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved. ** ** This copyrighted material is made available to anyone wishing to use, ** modify, copy, or redistribute it subject to the terms and conditions ** of the GNU General Public License v.2. * ----------------------------------------------------------------------- */ -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) 250-893-4579 (Mobile) http://juliusdavies.ca/logging.html

3 4

FC12: rsync-3.0.6: GPLv2 and GPLv3 and GPLv3+ ?
by Julius Davies 29 Nov '09

29 Nov '09

rsync's RPM says it is gplv3+. But.... rsync-3.0.6/getgroups.c;GPLv3 rsync-3.0.6/testhelp/maketree.py;GPLv2 The rest of the source is mostly GPLv3+ with some ZLIB. The "maketree.py" file doesn't seem too important. I ran it for fun by just typing: python maketree.py And now I have 688MB of randomly named files and directories under /tmp/foo (420 directories, 8420 files). So I'm not really sure if the fact "maketree.py" is strictly GPLv2 matters at all. -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) 250-893-4579 (Mobile) http://juliusdavies.ca/logging.html

3 4

Trademark License Agreement
by B.S. 26 Nov '09

26 Nov '09

Greetings, I'm planning to open a website about fedora.I think I have to sign TLA to legalize this but I have no idea about how to do this... I tried to connect with legal@fedor* they didn't replied to me Can anybody give me some directions? Thanks!

2 1

License tag to use for CC0 1.0 Universal?
by Paul Howarth 17 Nov '09

17 Nov '09

Hi, Upstream of perl-Module-Signature has relicensed it from MIT to Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal. Since the "good licenses for software" list on the wiki doesn't explicitly mention CC0 I thought I'd ask here if it's OK to tag such as package as "Public Domain" or should there be a separate entry in the list for CC0? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ http://search.cpan.org/dist/Module-Signature/lib/Module/Signature.pm#CC0_1.… Please Cc: me on any replies as I'm not subscribed to fedora-legal-list. Cheers, Paul.

3 3

Linking an LGPL library statically to an GPL program
by Christian Krause 17 Nov '09

17 Nov '09

Hi, during a package review I've stumbled over the following problem: - a package ships the following in its tarball: a LGPLv2 library a GPLv2+ main application - the main application statically links the library and only the resulting binary is shipped in the final rpm If I interpret http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#GPL_Compatibility_Matrix correctly, the 2nd table should be consulted and so this mix is acceptable and the license mentioned in the spec file should be GPLv2+ (since the resulting binary would have this license). I'm a little bit unsure about: - Does the fact, that the library is statically linked, affects the compatibility or does the same rules apply as for dynamic linking? - Since the LGPL sources would be in the src.rpm, do we have to mention both licenses in the spec file? Thank you very much in advance! Best regards, Christian

4 7

Photographs of hardware in Fedora documentation
by Ruediger Landmann 16 Nov '09

16 Nov '09

The new Fedora Wireless Guide includes photographs of different types of wireless adapter: http://sradvan.fedorapeople.org/Wireless_Guide/en-US/html-single/#sect-Wire… In each case, the manufacturer's logos and/or (obviously) the design of the hardware itself is visible in the photograph. Some questions: 1. Are the manufacturer's labels on the hardware and/or the design of the hardware itself (particularly the styling of the USB adapter in the first picture) likely to be protected by copyright? If so: * Is our use of the image to illustrate a generic component of a particular type likely to be covered by "fair use" for publication in the United States? * Is this protection likely to cause problems for people who want to reuse our content? (I'm thinking in particular of places that have no "fair use" or equivalent concept in their copyright law, or for reusers who want to use the image in a completely different context) -- and if so, do we care, or are reusers on their own here? 2. Could using specific pieces of hardware to illustrate a generic type of hardware be construed to be an endorsement of this particular piece of hardware or its manufacturer? If so, do we want to do this in our docs? Cheers Ruediger

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal November 2009