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. :)
Dear Legal team,
Christian Krause and myself would like to volunteer to maintain a page
for Fedora in Mono's download information site at
The people at the #mono IRC channel told me that any distribution can
request their own page in there in the "Mono for Unsupported or
Community-Supported Distribution" section. (Currently there is only some
info about Debian and Ubuntu, but I think Fedora deserves its page there
The page works in the following way:
- By default, it lists commercially supported distributions
- When clicking on the "Other" button (with Tux), the user gets to the
"Mono for Unsupported or Community-Supported Distribution" section
- In there, the logos and names of distributions appear and when
clicking on one, the user gets to a page which contains information
about how to get Mono on that distribution.
So, if we got such a page, clicking on the Fedora logo would allow the
user to get information about how to install Mono on Fedora.
I think this fits into
but I'd still like to ask, since I'm not a lawyer and I'm not 100% sure.
If you are okay with this, we will request such a page from the Mono team.
Haowei Lee, a Fedora ambassador from China, has approached me about
helping him get a "verified" status for an account on Sina's
microblogging site -- essentially the Chinese version of Twitter or
Identi.ca. I'm assuming this has trademark implications, so I'm
bringing it up here for your consideration.
You can see Haowei's request at
Fedora Project Leader
I'm working on packaging GSmartControl. Most of it is under a "GPLv2 or
GPLv3" license, some is BSD, some is zlib, some is Boost.
Some files have no notice, and their COPYING file says "All files which
don't have any copyright notices, as well as tests and examples are
covered under the Whatever License. See LICENSE_whatever.txt for details."
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED 'AS-IS', WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
WARRANTY. IN NO EVENT WILL THE AUTHORS BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES
ARISING FROM THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
Is this an acceptable license for Fedora? If so, what should it be
called in the License tag in the spec file?
When there are both "or" and "and" conditions involved in multiple
licensing, how is that conveyed in the License tag? Can I use
License: (GPLv2 or GPLv3) and BSD and zlib and Boost and Whatever
Apologies for the wide distribution, but if you were waiting on me for
clarification of the gSOAP licensing, please speak up. I know it was a
concern, but I can't seem to find it to circle back with the results.