legal November 2010

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

21 participants
18 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

LGPL for noncommercial works only?
by Jason L Tibbitts III 30 Nov '10

30 Nov '10

The wiiuse library from http://www.wiiuse.net/ has an odd license; it is GPLv3 or, for noncommercial uses, LGPLv3. I'm having trouble understanding how that kind of use restriction works or if it works at all. So: Is this kind of thing acceptable for Fedora? What would the License: tag read? My mind swirls with questions about whether I can accept their source under the LGPLv3 and redistribute to someone under LGPLv3 who then uses it in a commercial application, but I doubt that's on topic. - J<

3 3

Can i use Fedora
by kiran 29 Nov '10

29 Nov '10

Dear Sir, Can I download the fedora and use it in my office or commercial purpose without buying any licence or paying anything. Regards, Kiran.

2 1

OpenSSL and ERPL compatibility
by Jason L Tibbitts III 24 Nov '10

24 Nov '10

Simple question: Is it OK to link code under the Erlang Public License 1.1 (ERPL) with the OpenSSL libraries? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/ErlangPublicLicense http://www.sdisw.com/openssl.htm It would sure be fun to see a huge compatibility matrix of all of these weird licenses. - J<

1 0

visualvm multi licensing
by Stanislav Ochotnicky 23 Nov '10

23 Nov '10

I am doing review of old/new package - visualvm [1]. It used to be part of openjdk until recently. spec file contains multiple source tarballs. * netbeans-profiler-visualvm_release69.tar.gz contains dual-licensed files (GPLv2 with classpath exception or CDDL) * visualvm_harness-*tar - GPLv2 * visualvm_13-src.tar.gz - GPLv2+ The jars from profiler tarball are separate (files from it are not mixed into any other package, so classpath exception should be "working" as I understand it). Harness tar is basically just configure scripts and build instructions. visualvm_13-src contains the main application compiled using harness, the jars from profiler tar are used as plugins. I'd say it's OK to have this mix, but I'd like to be sure about exact License tag that is appropriate here. Maybe: License: GPLv2+ and (GPLv2 with classpath exception or CDDL) Thanks, [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640205 -- Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky(a)redhat.com> Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno PGP: 71A1677C Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com

2 1

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Regarding ghc-failure
by Tom Callaway 23 Nov '10

23 Nov '10

On 11/23/2010 08:36 AM, Ben Boeckel wrote: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:02:32AM -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >> On 11/21/2010 10:21 AM, lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com wrote: >>> There is no explicit disclaimer in the source package. >> >> Please send the upstream copyright holder/author this message: > <snip> > > Thanks. It's been changed to BSD3[1]. Thanks Ben! ~tom == Fedora Project

1 0

Regarding ghc-failure
by Lakshmi Narasimhan T V 22 Nov '10

22 Nov '10

Hello, I am reviewing package request ghc-failure ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630223 ). This is a haskell package. Each haskell package has a cabal file (similar to a Makefile say) that lists, among other things, the license of the sources. In case of ghc-failure, the license is PublicDomain (as mentioned in the cabal file). I looked at this page http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses and found Public Domain to be a *good* license. There reason for not having the space in the word PublicDomain (based on my assessment) is that the cabal program will not accept a license value with spaces. Given that the license field in the cabal file is not textually matching the license name that is listed in the webpage, is it ok to go ahead and use "Public Domain" in the spec file? Is it required that the author of the package be contacted to obtain a confirmation on PublicDomain -- Thanks and Regards Lakshmi Narasimhan T V

4 5

Fwd: Package Licensing
by Steven Garcia 15 Nov '10

15 Nov '10

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Steven Garcia <webwhammy(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Package Licensing To: Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> Thank you, for your reply. I apologize for misinterpreting the packaging guidelines for bundled libraries. For some reason when I was reading the guidelines, I was thinking in the context of compiled shared or static libraries as is so often the case. I failed to remember that in this context the definition of the term "library", includes interpreted third party source code such as JavaScript, PHP and others. There are two places where I should have been able to answer my own questions: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#Split_up_the_pro… http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_li… Again, I'm sorry for missing this. Please consider adding to the packaging guidelines a note similar to, "In this RPM packaging context, the definition of the term 'library' includes: compiled third party source code resulting in shared or static linkable files, interpreted third party source code such as JavaScript, PHP and others." Also, consider adding a note similar to, "If the license field of your RPM Spec file contains two or more licenses, be sure to read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries to ensure you're meeting the packaging guidelines." I merely mention these suggestions in an effort to reciprocate the help you have given me in better understanding the packaging process. I now realize the serious library flaws in my packaging. I'm going to attempt individual packaging of the third party libraries. Thank you for your time and consideration. On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com>wrote: > On 11/14/2010 11:30 PM, Steven Garcia wrote: > > The following lists a name, license and brief for each third-party > > source file group/library: > > I feel that you really should consider packaging (or using any already > packaged) versions of these third party components, as opposed to > bundling copies within your package. > > Not only would it resolve your licensing complexity, it would make it > much more likely that your package would be permitted into Fedora > without needing an exception, see: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries > > ~spot >

1 0

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Free emulators that run free games
by Damian Yerrick 15 Nov '10

15 Nov '10

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > it is clear that the use of such emulators is primarily for use > with non-free ROMs [with] few exceptions By that logic, the use of media player software is primarily for use with non-free music, which outnumbers music distributed under a license for free cultural works. And the primary purpose for a PDF viewer is for viewing non-free documents, which outnumber documents distributed under a license for free cultural works. If the issue is with the fact that only 27 games work, I can dig up more exceptions. For example, an NES emulator is useful to run software produced for the PlayPower project: <http://playpower.org/> > it is not worth the likely risk of lawsuit to include > "Nintendo" emulators On what grounds would NOA sue Red Hat? As for patent infringement, the patents on the NES expired half a decade ago. As for contributory copyright infringement, as I understand it, an emulator packaged with one or more free games appears to "be capable of substantial noninfringing uses", as the U.S. Supreme Court put it in Sony v. Universal. Another popular GNU/Linux distribution demonstrates this noninfringing use by packaging a free NES game; is it in trouble as well? <https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/maverick/+package/efp> To put it another way, what's the specific legal difference between FCEUX and DOSBox? <http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=174907> Once we characterize this difference, can someone update the Licensing/SoftwareTypes page to mention emulators that will not be packaged despite the availability of free software for the emulated platform? -- Damian Yerrick

2 1

Package Licensing
by Steven Garcia 15 Nov '10

15 Nov '10

Please, allow me to introduce myself and the package I represent. I've recently submitted a package for review at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650767. This is my first Fedora Core package and I'm not sponsored. I'm one of the upstream developers of this package. I was referred to this mailing list by https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Discussion_of_Licensing. I have thoroughly attempted to answer my own questions by reading the available resources and looking at existing packages. However, I have much uncertainty on how I should proceed regarding the licensing. The package in question contains a web application similar in package contents to wordpress or phpMyAdmin. The bulk content of the package consists of interpreted code such as PHP and JavaScript. There aren't any executable binaries being compiled or packaged. The source files that I and the other upstream developers create is licensed under AGPLv3. The following lists a name, license and brief for each third-party source file group/library: NAME: ezSQL LICENSE: LGPL BRIEF: Third-party PHP source files NAME: jQuery LICENSE: MIT or GPLv2 BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source file NAME: Sizzle LICENSE: MIT or BSD or GPL BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source file NAME: jqXslTransform LICENSE: MIT BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source file NAME: jqLayout LICENSE: MIT or GPL BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source file NAME: jqForm LICENSE: MIT or GPL BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source file NAME: jqUI LICENSE: MIT or GPL BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source files NAME: jsTree LICENSE: MIT or GPL BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source files NAME: Sarissa LICENSE: ASL 2.0 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+ BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source files NAME: Plupload LICENSE: GPLv2 BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript and PHP source files NAME: Gears Init LICENSE: BSD 3-clause no advertising BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source file NAME: BrowserPlus Gateway LICENSE: MPLv1.1 BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source file NAME: CodeMirror LICENSE: zlib BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source files NAME: ParsePHP LICENSE: BSD 3-clause no advertising BRIEF: Third-party JavaScript source files The current RPM Spec license field for the package in question is: License: AGPLv3 and GPLv2 and LGPLv2+ and MPLv1.1 and zlib and BSD and (MIT or GPLv2) and (MIT or BSD or GPLv2+) and (ASL 2.0 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+) I'm NOT sure that the above license field is correct. Please, assist me in answering the following questions. Is it acceptable in this specific case for approval as a Fedora package to simply put 'License: AGPLv3' as the license field of the RPM Spec file? And is it required in this case for approval as a Fedora package to express all the third-party source group/library licenses in the RPM Spec file license field? Is it required in this case for approval as a Fedora package to include in the package a separate relevant license text file for every third-party source group/library? Please, assist me in specifying the proper RPM Spec license field for approval as a Fedora package. Thank you.

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal November 2010