Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CAcert.org license
by Tom Callaway
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. :)
7 years, 1 month
Verifying Fedora from unofficial remixes that have removed the Fedora trademarks
by Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
So I've been wondering how we can measure usage of Fedora vs unofficial
remixes that have removed the Fedora Trademarks and while speaking with
Seth regarding one of the ideas I had on how we could potentially
implement this he pointed it out to me that we might be legally
prohibited to gather this information with or without explicit user
consent and forwarded me to you guys to straighten this out.
So my question to you guys is.
Is there anything legally prohibiting or restricting us on verifying and
gather information if users are running Fedora or are running some
unofficial remix that have removed the Fedora trademarks?
If the answer is yes.
What are we allowed to do?
What are we not allowed to do?
If we are not allowed to gather this data in anyway or form can the
unofficial remix be legally bound to notify us of their existence and or
provide us with that data so we could have some kind of an idea on how
many remixes are out there which Fedora is "upstream" for?
12 years, 4 months
Packaging Mangler for Fedora
by Christopher Svanefalk
for those who have not heard of the project, Mangler ( www.mangler.org
<http://www.mangler.org> ) is an open-source client for Ventrilo, not
affiliated with Flagship Industries or the original Ventrilo client.
I was wondering if anybody from the Fedora team has examined this
project, and know whether there are any legal stumblingblocks to
packaging it with Fedora? It seems evident that the project has been
implemented by some kind of reverse-engineering, but the web page seems
to have little info on the matter. It does not seem as transparent as
other similar projects, such as Wine.
Any views on this?
Thanks for any and all info!
<P><p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2" style="font-size:13.5px">_______________________________________________________________<BR>Hitta kärleken med hjälp av vårt matchningstest - <a href="http://spray.matchaffinity.se/?mtcmk=614114">Klicka här!</a></font>
12 years, 5 months
Legal requirements for the Multi-Desktop Live media
by Christoph Wickert
We, the EMEA ambasadors plan to do a multi-desktop spin for Fedora 14.
This is a dual layer DVD with all desktop spins on it:
* Desktop spin (a.k.a the spin that must not be called GNOME spin)
* KDE Spin
* LXDE Spin
* Xfce Spin
* Moblin Spin
in i686 and x86_64 (therefor we need to do dual layer). Everything is
tied together with a boot menu.
The board has said they would approve the spin and grant it the usage of
the Fedora trademark but
* we must not refer to GNOME as GNOME but as the 'desktop'
* they want it tested first.
We are fine with these two requirements, but on IRC Jesse indicated that
there might be other problems. Given that
* the spin only consists of 100% Fedora packages
* the spin only consists of approved Fedora spins
* the board grants us the use of the Fedora trademark
* we have download location for the image on Fedora infrastructure
* we put a readme on the spin whith the download location of the
are there any other legal requirements we need to take into account? If
so, please tell us ASAP.
We need to figure this out ASAP in order to have media for the Release
events. Any help and advice you can give us is highly appreciated.
12 years, 5 months
Reasons for not including MPlayer in main repository?
by Stefan Parviainen
I have an application that I would like to package, but it has a
dependency on mplayer. It would, therefore, be nice to get a version of
mplayer into the Fedora repositories.
I know the mplayer project has had some legal difficulties
regarding the license previously, but these seem to have been solved
some time ago (e.g. Debian includes a version on mplayer). Currently the
project is released under GPLv2.
The main issue nowadays is probably patents. Apparently support for some
formats can not be included without breaking some patents. Does anyone
on this list have an idea which formats are problematic from the point
of view of the Fedora project? Would removing support for these formats
make it possible to include a stripped version of mplayer in the Fedora
repositories? MPlayer is a fairly well known piece of software, has this
problem been discussed somewhere before?
12 years, 5 months
// No warranty; no copyright -- use this as you will.
by Julius Davies
I see 4 lines of comments in a java source file that might pertain to copyright:
JTidy - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/jtidy
Particular file is src/org/xml/sax/SAXParseException.java
2 // No warranty; no copyright -- use this as you will.
3 // $Id: SAXParseException.java,v 1.1 2000/11/14 16:49:04
garypeskin Exp $
27 * @author David Megginson,
28 * <a href="mailto:email@example.com">sax(a)megginson.com</a>
Maybe this can be classified as effective license = "public domain"?
ps. Thanks so much for your help in 2009. It resulted in this academic paper:
"Understanding and Auditing the Licensing of Open Source Software Distributions"
$ sudo apt-get install cowsay
$ echo "Moo." | cowsay | cowsay -n | cowsay -n
12 years, 5 months