legal February 2009

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

19 participants
27 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

OpenCascade Public License again
by Dan Horák 02 Mar '09

02 Mar '09

Hi Spot, you will probably remember that you were checking the OpenCascade Public License few moth ago. Now the question about its free/nonfree status was opened on the upstream forum and it would be a good chance to express our (or better RH Legal's) reasons that led to the decision that it is non-free and possibly make upstream to resolve them. I am including the mail I got from Debian packagers. URL of the discussion is http://www.opencascade.org/org/forum/thread_15859/ related Review Request is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974 Dan

3 4

BSD3 without binary clause
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen 02 Mar '09

02 Mar '09

Hi I am reviewing a package (ghc-X11) which is basically BSD 3 clause without the 2nd binary clause. http://darcs.haskell.org/packages/X11/LICENSE Would this just be BSD license? Jens

2 1

ms-sys
by Alexey Torkhov 27 Feb '09

27 Feb '09

Hi. In ms-sys review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458011 there was question regarding its legal status that was never answered: This package contains verbatim copies of various MBRs and boot records stuffed into arrays in the supposedly GPLed source code. Is that legally acceptable? Could somebody comment on this? Alexey

1 0

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License
by Tom Callaway 27 Feb '09

27 Feb '09

On 2009-02-27 at 13:04:24 -0500, Eric Moret <eric.moret(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Case solved! I was able to compare the source codes for Paint.NET 3.36 > current and mono paint. The GPC code is clearly visible in the more recent > tree and absent from mono paint. I also received confirmation on the mono > paint mailing list. > > http://groups.google.com/group/mono-paint-port/browse_thread/thread/6892be2… Great! Now all you have to do is replace all the graphics. ;) ~spot

1 0

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License
by Tom Callaway 26 Feb '09

26 Feb '09

On 2009-02-26 at 16:23:27 -0500, Eric Moret <eric.moret(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The confusion comes from the upstream Paint.NET licensing which is in limbo. > On the one hand their license says pdn is under an MIT license but on the > other hand they have removed the link to the download source code archive > and posted a cryptic message on their forum entitled "The source code is not > available" and containing the following statement "Please don´t ask for it, > or ask about it. Thanks." ( > http://paintdotnet.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=28275&p=238380&hilit=so… > ). > > Once this mess will be cleared up, it will be easier for mono paint to take > action in one direction or another. In the mean time I would simply suggest > we package the project in its current form and stick to upstream as progress > are made towards resolution. My concern is that the "Paint.net" upstream source contains non-free bits (the GPC bits). The mono paint fork may have the GPC bits or it may not. It doesn't seem to, but Miguel doesn't remember when he forked. The very involvement of Miguel in this mess makes me uncomfortable, but the missing facts certainly don't help. ~spot

1 0

question on a new license in a new package.
by Michael Christie 26 Feb '09

26 Feb '09

Hi, The HBAAPI project: http://hbaapi.sourceforge.net/ uses a license called the SNIA Public License Version 1.0. In the source header there is this: * License: * The contents of this file are subject to the SNIA Public License * Version 1.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in * compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at * * /http://www.snia.org/English/Resources/Code/OpenSource.html * * Software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" * basis, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See * the License for the specific language governing rights and limitations * under the License. The problem is that this SNAI licsense is not listed under good licenses here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing so I wanted to get it cleared, but the link to the license in the headers is a dead link. If the maintainers of the code do not have a copy of the license and the people at SNIA do not respond to emails about it, what are my options? If I find something on google in another project that says it is the snia public license 1.0, can I include it with the source and send to you guys to get cleared? What if I cannot find 1.0 (I can find 1.1 but not 1.0)? Do I just have to ditch the sourceforge project and write code from scratch and license it how I want? Thanks Mike

2 1

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License
by Tom Callaway 26 Feb '09

26 Feb '09

On 2009-02-26 at 14:21:24 -0500, Eric Moret <eric.moret(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This is the mono paint tree; that tree has not undergone a renaming of the > tarball dist target nor any of the embedded resulting binaries. Wow, that seems like a really bad idea. I'd go so far as to suggest that upstream rename things to avoid confusion, especially since there are licensing differences and possible trademarks in play. ~spot

1 0

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License
by Tom Callaway 26 Feb '09

26 Feb '09

On 2009-02-26 at 13:52:24 -0500, Eric Moret <eric.moret(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The current tree does not seem to have gpc mentioned anywhere. Is that Paint.net or mono-paint? The naming is not clear. ~spot

1 0

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License
by Tom Callaway 26 Feb '09

26 Feb '09

On 2009-02-26 at 13:21:01 -0500, Eric Moret <eric.moret(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Tom, > > I looked for this in the source tree but could not identify the offending > GPC code. What I suspect is that the license we are looking at ( > http://www.getpaint.net/license.html) is for the current version (3.36) of > Paint.NET which _may_ indeed include GPC while the mono paint tree that we > are building (http://code.google.com/p/paint-mono/) was last synched from > upstream over one year ago and is currently stuck on 3.00; mono paint is > currently unable to resync because the code does not seem to be available > from upstream Paint.NET anymore making mono paint look more like a fork of > Paint.NET than a port to mono, see message below from the project lead. Hmm. Does mono-paint have the same license text inside of it? If it could be shown that mono paint forked from Paint.NET before the GPC code was merged, then this would be a non issue, but if the license text in mono paint has the GPC licensing in it, it is safe to assume that happened pre fork. ~spot

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal February 2009