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. :)
I would like to know if the following license terms are acceptable for Fedora?
=== LICENSE ===
(C) Copyright (1994) The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior
University. Except for commercial resale, lease, license or other commercial
transactions, permission is hereby given to use, copy, modify, and
distribute this software. STANFORD MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES
OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THIS SOFTWARE.
No support is implied or provided for these older versions of Stanford
=== END ===
My assumption is that it is non-free because it restricts its resale,
lease for a specific purpose?
The legal status of iLBC codec (which has some advantages over other
speech codecs) prevented us from inclusion its sources into Fedora
repository. We even were forced to modify original tarballs for
several VoIP software projects to remove its sources before uploading
to the Fedora packaging repository.
Fortunately Google had bought Global IP Sound company, the original
author of iLBC and several months ago they released WebRTC project
under free license which contains several codecs (and ILBC among
them). Unfortunately it's not an easy task to properly package
software from Google (as usual), so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting
for proper support for iLBC codec in the nearest future.
So current situation with iLBC looks quite complicated to me. We have
old sources stripped from RFC text which were licensed under non-free
custom license and were included in a lot of other VoIP projects as
is. Also we have new modified sources released by Google under free
license (within WebRTC) with somewhat different API (none of the
existing VoIP software is compatible with them AFAIC). Google
explicitly states that iLBC now available under the same license as
other WebRTC parts but I'm not sure what's the status of old sources.
*My* *question* *is* - can we at least stop stripping of iLBC sources
from packages? I will definitely ask FESCo later which is in charge of
making technical decisions regarding unbundling libraries, however
before asking technical questions I'd like to hear some legal advises.
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
Hi Fedora Legal,
Back in Januari this year we (the Fedora MinGW SIG) filed a review
request for various packages belonging to the mingw-w64 cross compiler
toolchain. This was done because we want to add support for
cross-compiling binaries for the win64 target in Fedora.
We made two of these packages (mingw-headers  and mingw-crt )
block FE-LEGAL as we received some signals in the past that a legal
audit should be done for these packages. We are not entirely sure if
such a legal audit is really necessary but in order to play it safe we
wanted someone from FE-LEGAL/RH-LEGAL to take a look at it.
Earlier this year, one of the lead mingw-w64 developers was hired by Red
Hat. With this step we (the Fedora MinGW SIG) expected that the legal
issues would get sorted out soon, but unfortunately there's still no
news. This mingw-w64 developer has tried to contact RH-LEGAL multiple
times, but he kept getting the answer from the lawyer that other more
important issues got between.
As there have already passed about 10 months since the initial request
we're getting a bit frustrated with the situation as we still don't know
how long this legal approval is going to take.
All other preparations for the introduction of the mingw-w64 toolchain
are already done. We've updated our packaging guidelines  and got
them approved by the FPC . We've already ported about 75 mingw32
packages to use these new packaging guidelines  and have been testing
everything in a separate yum repo  for the time being.
As you can see we have to maintain the mingw packages in two different
places at the moment. Once in the Fedora repos and once in the testing
repo. As this is quite a maintenance burden to keep everything in sync
we would like to merge all changes from the mingw-w64 testing repo back
to the Fedora repos sooner than later. The only thing which is blocking
is from going forward right now is the legal approval.
We are currently aiming for Fedora 17 to introduce the mingw-w64
toolchain. This means that the legal approval has to be done before the
F17 feature submission deadline which is at the end of Januari 2012 .
Is there anything we can do to help speed up the legal approval?
Erik van Pienbroek
Fedora MinGW SIG
I'm submitting pslib for review:
License tag as we see it is: LGPLv2+ and MPLv1.0 and MIT
MPLv1.0 is listed as GPL incompatible, does that also apply to the LGPL?
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
What type of license does this research license fall under?
=== B3TERMS_OF_USE ===
The terms under which the software is provided are as the following.
Software is distributed as is, completely without warranty or service
support. The University of California and its employees are not liable
for the condition or performance of the software.
The University owns the copyright but shall not be liable for any
infringement of copyright or other proprietary rights brought by third
parties against the users of the software.
The University of California hereby disclaims all implied warranties.
The University of California grants the users the right to modify, copy,
and redistribute the software and documentation, both within the user's
organization and externally, subject to the following restrictions:
1. The users agree not to charge for the University of California code
itself but may charge for additions, extensions, or support.
2. In any product based on the software, the users agree to acknowledge
the UC Berkeley BSIM Research Group that developed the software. This
acknowledgment shall appear in the product documentation.
3. The users agree to obey all U.S. Government restrictions governing
redistribution or export of the software.
4. The users agree to reproduce any copyright notice which appears on
the software on any copy or modification of such made available
=== END ===
Is it acceptable for Fedora?
Tax and benefit requirements here require me to declare all work, both
paid and unpaid, and provide the full name and address of each
company, organization or person i am working for. I am volunteering
for the Fedora Project but i cannot find these details clearly defined
anywhere on the fedoraproject.org website. Therefore i am writing to
this list in the hope that somebody can provide the details details or
point me to where i can find them.
To summarize, i need the the full name and address of the
company/organization/person i am working for as a result of
volunteering for Fedora Project.
Thank you very much in advance.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary
and those who don't...
Dear list readers,
A package I put on review can utilize dxflib:
This license file ships in the tarball:
What looks like a proprietary license, is suddenly interupted by:
"NOTE: dxflib Open Source Edition is licensed under the terms of the
GPL and not under this Agreement. If Licensee has, at any time,
developed all (or any portions of) the Application(s) using RibbonSoft's
publicly licensed dxflib Open Source Edition, Licensee must comply
with RibbonSoft's requirements and license such Application(s)
(or any portions derived there from) under the terms of the Free Software
Foundation's GNU General Public License version 2 (the "GPL") a copy of
which is located at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC1
The headers in the various file mention GPLv2. With all the rubble in the
license, around mentioning it was GPLv2, is this certainly free software?
Thanks in advance,