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. :)
1) I came across another review with the same license question. The
source files have one of the
GPLv2, GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ headers each. They get compiled and produce
1 final binary executable. None of the headers (or other source code
files) go to the final RPM.
What goes to the license tag of the package?
2) Hypothetical question (although happens rather frequently): What if
there was a -devel subpackage and .h files with different licenses
ended up in this -devel subpackage?
Could you please clarify if the Trusster  Open Source License is an
acceptable Free/Open Source Software License for the Fedora project.
The Teal  project uses this license:
=== BEGIN ===
Trusster Open Source License version 1.0a (TRUST)
copyright (c) 2006 Mike Mintz and Robert Ekendahl. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 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.
* Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on
how to obtain
complete source code for this software and any accompanying
software that uses this software.
The source code must either be included in the distribution or be
available in a timely fashion for no more than
the cost of distribution plus a nominal fee, and must be freely
redistributable under reasonable and no more
restrictive conditions. For an executable file, complete source
code means the source code for all modules it
contains. It does not include source code for modules or files
that typically accompany the major components
of the operating system on which the executable file runs.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY MIKE MINTZ AND ROBERT EKENDAHL ``AS IS''
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE,
OR NON-INFRINGEMENT, ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL MIKE MINTZ AND
ROBERT EKENDAHL OR ITS 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.
=== END ===
 Trustter. http://www.trusster.com
 Teal. A Verification Utility and Connection Library.
Peter, thanks for the quick reply!
Perhaps fedora-legal can provide useful advice?
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 06:31:03PM +0300, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> Hello John!
> 2010/2/25 John W. Linville <linville(a)redhat.com>:
> > Peter,
> > We are in the process of reviewing packages for RHEL-6. The review
> > of b43-openfwwf generated the comment below. Do you have any input?
> I'm sure, that GPL does NOT cover the text of the README, since it
> simply a dump of web-page, and I didn't think they licensed their site
> contents under GPL :)
> > Perhaps README.openfwwf needs to be removed or revised?
> Although, I almost absolutely think that nobody will sue Redhat for
> inclusion of this text, I think, that properly re-licensing a README
> is a generally good idea. At least we should ask upstream for
> clarification - could you ask someone, who skilled enough in solving
> these boring legal issues? I could contact them by myself, but I'n not
> sure, what should I ask them. To send us e-mail with license
> clarification or to add README (listed below) to their tarball.
> Just for the reference - here is a full text of README
> With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
John W. Linville Linux should be at the core
linville(a)redhat.com of your literate lifestyle.
I have some questions about how to proceed in the light of this reported
There is an upstream bug corresponding to it here:
The problem is that some of the source files in CUPS (all versions)
include the BSD-With-Advertising license text in their headers, whereas
CUPS as a whole is licensed as GPLv2 and LGPLv2 (but may link against
As noted in the Bugzilla bug report, the code cannot automatically be
relicensed to remove the advertising clause.
These files will be removed in a future version of CUPS (1.5.x), but the
current stable series will continue to ship them.
Here is the upstream response to STR #3509:
Well, since we are the copyright holder we can say that the BSD license
in the SCSI backend sources is compatible, just as we say you can mix
CUPS with OpenSSL - the CUPS license is GPL2+LGPL2+exceptions.
In any case, since a) the SCSI backend is never used, b) we have removed
it from CUPS trunk, and c) Linux distributors can always remove the SCSI
backend from the list of legacy backends that are built and installed
with the current releases of CUPS, I'm going to just dupe this bug
against STR #3500.
STR #3500 is the upstream bug report which caused these files to be
removed on the trunk for the reason that they are no longer needed.
What are these files? The scsi.c, scsi-irix.c and scsi-linux.c files
make up the 'scsi' CUPS backend, an executable which resides
in /usr/lib/cups/backend and which the CUPS scheduler spawns in order to
hand off jobs to SCSI printers. It links against libcups.so.2, which is
licensed as LGPLv2.
So, the questions are:
a) is this a problem?
b) if so is it sufficient for me to simply not ship the scsi backend in
the cups binary package, or does the source tarball need to be re-spun
for each new release to excise these BSD-licensed files?
I want to verify what will be the license tag for hunspell-te
package in F-13? Will it be GPL+ as no version mentioned anywhere? or it
will be GPLv2+ based on "If neither the source, nor the upstream
composed documentation says anything about the license version, then it
could be under _ANY_ version of the GPL."
"The version listed in COPYING is irrelevant from this perspective.
Technically it could be under any license, but if all we have to go by
is COPYING, we'll use COPYING to imply that it is under the GPL, all
versions (GPL+). "
Can someone explain above line in detail? Say if COPYING says "GPLv2
only" then will I have to use "GPL+" or "GPLv2"?
Below is my attempt at trying to report on some possibly incorrect
license attributes. I grab a recent "License" attribute from a recent
RPM, and then I show you results from files I automatically scanned
from the original FC12 DVD. There are some slight version mismatches
between the recent RPM I grabbed and the FC12 RPM, but I did that just
in case you already fixed the license attribute - I didn't want to
bother you with already fixed stuff!
I hope you can make sense of the format below. The listings after the
'---' are source files and their detected license that support my
claim that the license attribute in the RPM might be incorrect.
yum-3.2.26-3.fc13.noarch.rpm (License: GPLv2+)
(Should it be GPLv2 without +?)
vinagre-2.29.90-1.fc13.i686.rpm (License: GPLv2+)
(Should it be GPLv3+?)
vino-2.28.1-1.fc12.i686.rpm (License: GPLv2+)
(Should it be GPLv3+?)
iproute-2.6.32-1.fc13.i686.rpm (License: GPLv2+)
(Should it be GPLv2 without a +?)
alsa-utils-1.0.22-1.fc12.i686.rpm (License: GPLv2+)
(Should it be GPLv2 without +?)
bison-2.4.1-4.fc12.i686.rpm (License: GPLv2+)
(Should it be GPLv3+?)
fetchmail-6.3.14-1.fc13.i686.rpm (License: GPL+ and Public Domain)
(Should it be GPLv2+?)
firstboot-1.110-1.fc12.i686.rpm (License: GPLv2+)
(Should it be GPLv2 without a +?)
iptables-1.4.6-2.fc13.i686.rpm (License: GPL+)
(Should it be GPLv2 without a +, or maybe GPLv2+ ?)
kdebindings-4.4.0-1.fc12.src.rpm (License: LGPLv2+)
(Should it be GPLv2+ or GPLv3+ depending on binary rpm?)
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:36:50 -0500
> From: "Paul W. Frields" <stickster(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Would like to use Papercdcase for
> distributing Fedora Linux
> To: legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Message-ID: <20100223153650.GF4143(a)victoria.internal.frields.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 08:11:48PM -0500, Justin O'Brien wrote:
> > Hello:
> > I am a North American Fedora Ambassador and would like to ask for a non
> > exclusive Creative Commons License  to use Papercdcase for the
> > purpose of distributing Fedora Linux .
> > Because we are a Free Software and Free Culture project we need to be
> > able to re-distribute everything under Free Licenses that allow for
> > commercial distribution.
> I'm not quite clear on what you're requesting. Do you want to use
> the cover art we use for Fedora media, and have it distributed at
> http://www.papercdcase.com/ ?
> The cover art we use is already provided under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license
> through the Fedora wiki:
> You're free to use and remix this to create a suitable foldable cover
> for the Papercdcase site, if that's what you're looking to do. If I
> missed your meaning, though, please feel free to correct me. :-)
> Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
> gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
> http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
> Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
I'm terribly sorry for the confusion Paul. I cc'd the list on my req to
papercdcase.com so that if there were was anything inaccurate in it
someone could jump in. I have a plan to make a release agnostic design
for some DIY marketing stuff I'm working on.
Again I'm sorry for the confusion
I am a North American Fedora Ambassador and would like to ask for a non
exclusive Creative Commons License  to use Papercdcase for the
purpose of distributing Fedora Linux .
Because we are a Free Software and Free Culture project we need to be
able to re-distribute everything under Free Licenses that allow for
There are a couple of Creative Commons Licenses that we/you could use:
This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your
work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original
creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered, in terms
of what others can do with your works licensed under Attribution.
License Deed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0
Legal Code: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
Attribution Share Alike
This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for
commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new
creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to
open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry
the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use.
License Deed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0
Legal Code: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
Thank you for your consideration.
Justin "threethirty" O'Brien
Fedora Ambassador & Marketing Team Member
threethirty on freenode.net
@threethirty - twitter/identi.ca/jaiku
Phone: (765) 688-0723
Can we add the following license to Fedora? I mean that it would become
acceptable for packages.
I was told that I should write the reasons to use it instead of an existing
one. I think that this could show the variety of cultures that make Fedora
Link to license: http://www.ojuba.org/wiki/_export/raw/waqf/license
1. It's not new, Waqf had been used to boost scientific advance in
Islamic civilization for centuries.
2. If the law allow us to have some thing as a property, then we (the
owners) have the right to make what we own as waqf.
3. We need to show our different vision, motivation and ethical
background, we are not doing this because we are communist nor
socialist nor capitalists who feel pathetic..etc. nor what ever
4. In the forth term we made an obligation on distributing the
modifications that it must be known the the end user that this is a
Other helpful links
Thanks in advance
Tareq Al Jurf
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia