Re: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License
by Tom Callaway
On 2009-02-25 at 17:57:01 -0500, Eric Moret <eric.moret(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for a quick reply. I have already created a request on the fedora
> artwork design service page for replacement of icons and resources:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/DesignService#Paint.NET_icon_repla...
>
> Despite the pdn license page and upon further inspection I was not able to
> locate the source code of GPC anywhere in the source of the package. Off
> course I might have overlooked it. Here is the current SRPM:
The problem is that because the license says that Paint.NET includes it,
you're going to need to find it and pull every bit of it out (or get the
GPC copyright holders to permit its use under the terms of a free license).
~spot
15 years, 1 month
GPC License
by Eric Moret
I would like to package Paint.NET for Fedora. It seems this application
includes the source code of the GPC project which is licensed under its own
terms. Could you please let me know if this license would be acceptable for
inclusion in Fedora?
Thank you,
__
Eric
15 years, 1 month
The Iran Question
by Roozbeh Pournader
On 18 Feb 2009, wrote:
> We have a contributor from Iran.
This is no news. Fedora has had quite a few contributors from Iran
before. We have had Iranian package maintainers, bug reporters, code
contributors, translators, ambassadors, etc already. They have been
Iranian citizens, some living in (and contributing from) Iran, some
living in the west (Canada, US, etc).
> It is obvious to me that we can not directly provide him support [...]
What makes it obvious? Are you thinking of any specific law? There are
various United States laws restricting some kinds of business with
"foreigners", but all of them detailed exceptions for this and that.
> The first question in my mind is: what type of liability exists for us
> to have 'members' of Fedora in such countries.
I don't think we need to be extra careful with contributors from Iran,
or any other countries, unless we talk about specific laws. Please
don't let the media carry you away.
Lots of Iran-related stuff I've encountered in the free software world
are just based on FUD. So unless there is a specific law mentioned,
one shouldn't don't worry.
> The example I am
> thinking of is if he as an individual downloads Fedora isos and
> distributes them at an event in Iran, is there risk to us because he
> is a member of the Fedora Project.
That has already happened before quite a few times. I have personally
downloaded such ISOs, burnt them to CDs, and distributed them in
events in Iran when I lived there. I was an Iranian living in Iran,
and the Iranian laws did not forbid me or my sponsors to do that, as
far as I could tell (and we had lawyers look into it too).
> Perhaps a better question is: What is he forbidden from doing.
Whatever the Iranian laws forbids him to do. He is under Iranian
jurisdiction. Tell him to talk to an Iranian lawyer. That's what I
did.
Roozbeh,
One of the "Iranians" >:)
15 years, 2 months
The Iran Question
by David Nalley
Ohh legal-type ones:
We have a contributor from Iran (and I imagine that you are already
engaged on the trademark issue for a proposed website).
This gentleman has recently been sponsored as an Ambassador and
recently asked the question about what he can do within Iran.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-ambassadors-list/2009-February/msg...
I responded and told him that I had been pondering this question but
had no answers and would appeal to those who are more qualified to
answer.
It is obvious to me that we can not directly provide him support
however I think his questions are valid, and there have been recent
conversations about other countries in similar situations such as
Cuba.
The first question in my mind is: what type of liability exists for us
to have 'members' of Fedora in such countries. The example I am
thinking of is if he as an individual downloads Fedora isos and
distributes them at an event in Iran, is there risk to us because he
is a member of the Fedora Project.
Perhaps a better question is: What is he forbidden from doing. Given
the recent list traffic regarding Cuba and now Iran, perhaps codifying
such restrictions would be beneficial. If such a page already exists,
please feel free to ignore my question and just point me there, but my
friend Google yielded little other than this blog post from Greg a
year ago:
http://gregdek.livejournal.com/23007.html
Another question - supposing some level of involvement is acceptable,
and that Fedora EMEA e.V. is not subject to such restrictions (it's my
belief that EU countries have no such law regarding Iran, but whether
that's a belief grounded in reality might be a different matter) could
Fedora EMEA support activities in $forbidden_places? I know RH Legal
is trying to wrap it's head around the entire non-profit organization
stuff at the moment, so perhaps we can also get this answered in the
process.
Thanks
David Nalley
15 years, 2 months
ISO-HTML DTD license
by Ville Skyttä
Hello,
The w3c-markup-validator package contains a copy of the "ISO-HTML" DTD
in /usr/share/sgml/w3c-markup-validator/ISO-HTML/15445.dtd which contains:
[...]
Copyright (C) 2000, IETF, W3C (MIT, Inria, Keio), ISO/IEC.
All Rights Reserved.
Permission to copy in any form is granted for use with
validating and conforming systems and applications as defined
in ISO/IEC 15445:2000, provided this copyright notice is included
with all copies.
[...]
Is the "for use with ..." part a problem wrt. inclusion in Fedora? The
definitions of validating and conforming systems are documented at
http://purl.org/NET/ISO+IEC.15445/15445.html
If it is a problem, is evicting the file from binary packages enough, or
should it be removed from inside source rpms too?
15 years, 2 months
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] xBill legal opinion required
by Tom Callaway
On 2009-02-16 at 14:42:30 -0500, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> On 2008-12-26 at 5:50:31 -0500, "Andrea Musuruane" <musuruan(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I'd like to now if xBill is suitable for inclusion in Fedora:
>>>
>>> http://www.xbill.org/
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Red Hat Legal says this is not acceptable.
>
> Is it because of the artwork? We can get it replaced.
Well, the issue is that the game is clearly disparaging Microsoft and
its marks. I'm not sure any amount of "artwork" replacement will
overcome that.
~spot
15 years, 2 months
W3C logo and icon usage
by Ville Skyttä
Hello,
There are some packages that contain W3C logos and icons which are not under
the W3C software license, but are covered by other licenses.
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/trademark-license
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/logo-usage-20000308.html
http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#icon
At least the "W3C Icon" and a bunch of "W3C Validator Logos" are included in
some packages. There are some constraints on these icons/logos that I think
might make them problematic for inclusion Fedora:
1) No modification permitted (OTOH I believe it's the same thing with
Mozilla's logos in firefox, thunderbird etc).
2) The "W3C Valid $foo" logos may only be used on pages that pass validation,
and they have some other usage restrictions wrt. where they can/must link to
etc.
What does this mean for packages including these icons? Are they ok as is,
undistributable, ok if icons removed from binary packages and software/docs
modified to link to online icons on W3C sites instead of shipped copies, ok
with icons removed also from source tarballs in the source rpm, something
else? Affected packages include at least w3c-markup-validator (icons both in
source and binary rpms), xhtml1-dtds and html401-dtds (some icons in source
rpms, but not in binaries).
An entry in the license list for this wouldn't hurt.
15 years, 2 months
is BSD with adverting?
by Robert Marcano
Greetings, can anyone help me identify this license?, I am not sure if tag
it as BSD with adventising because it says "The end-user documentation"
Sequence Library License
This license applies to all portions of the Sequence library, which
are not externally-maintained libraries (e.g. junit or jsch).
====================================================================
Copyright (c) 2000-2008 SyntEvo GmbH, Ainring, GERMANY.
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if
any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes
software developed by SyntEvo GmbH, Ainring, GERMANY."
Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if
and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
4. The hosted project names must not be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this software without prior written
permission. For written permission, please contact
info(a)syntevo.com.
5. Neither the name of SyntEvo GmbH nor the names of its contributors
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
IN NO EVENT SHALL SyntEvo GmbH OR HIS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE
GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER
IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
====================================================================
--
Robert Marcano
15 years, 2 months
