legal June 2011

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

12 participants
11 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

license question: glulxe
by Ken Dreyer 29 Jun '11

29 Jun '11

Working my way through a package review for gargoyle. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=682544 . Most of the software in the package is GPL. However, one dependency (glulxe) has some terms that I am not sure about. Is the glulxe license acceptable in Fedora? I've pasted it below. The source code in this package is copyright 1999-2010 by Andrew Plotkin. You may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any conditions, as long as the code and documentation is not changed. You may also incorporate this code into your own program and distribute that, or modify this code and use and distribute the modified version, as long as you retain a notice in your program or documentation which mentions my name and the URL shown above.

3 5

btanks license exception question
by Bruno Wolff III 28 Jun '11

28 Jun '11

I recently took over btanks and noticed that there is an exception to the base (GPL v2) license included. Do I need to worry about this? The exception is: Battle Tanks is distributed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the GNU GPL with the following interpretation and a specific Exception: 1. Definitions used in this Exception: Battle Tanks�refers to a scalable computer game program (able to be combined with non-Open Source Applications). The program contains limited game logic and limited game content (including pictures, maps, visual images of game scenery, sounds and other artwork) and is distributed free on the GNU GPL conditions. A Non-Open Source Application� refers to a body of expanded game content (including pictures, maps, visual images of game scenery, sounds and other artwork) together with patterns containing expanded game logic, which is intended solely for the use with Battle Tanks, can work exclusively along with Battle Tanks and shall be distributed through selling on the terms and conditions other than those of GNU GPL. 2. Exclusive rights to Battle Tanks belong to the company Netive Company�Ltd., Novosibirsk (Russia), which may link or combine Battle Tanks with some non-Open Source Applications. Netive Company�Ltd. can sign a separate written License Agreement with a third party, under which they are granted permission to: a) link or combine Battle Tanks with non-Open Source Applications; b) reproduce and distribute through selling copies of non-Open Source Applications along with Battle Tanks. 3. All the provisions granted under the section 2 of the Exception go into effect, provided all the corresponding licenses of using non-Open Source Applications are available and observed. 4. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the Program code and other code used in conjunction with the Program except the Non-GPL Code covered by this exception. 5. Only Netive Company, Ltd. may make changes or additions to the Exception.

2 1

Embaroed Coutries
by Frank Murphy 28 Jun '11

28 Jun '11

Iraq, Afghanistan, appear not to be included. Are they ok for Freemedia? http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora Export Regulations (accessed 18th June 2011 13:30 gmt) -- Regards, Frank Murphy UTF_8 Encoded Friend of fedoraproject.org

2 1

Use of Fedora icons in Eclipse
by Minoo Ziaei 13 Jun '11

13 Jun '11

Hi, We are developing an Eclipse plug-in [1], which uses an icon related to Fedora on the Welcome screen in Eclipse [2]. We are wondering if this is OK, or if we would need to remove the icon. Previously, we had received permission for this part of plug-in [3]. But this is a new part added to this plug-in. Currently, we are using /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/fedora-logo-icon.png as it comes with Fedora 15. Thanks, Minoo [1] https://fedorahosted.org/eclipse-fedorapackager [2] http://fedorapeople.org/~mziaei1/fedorapackager-welcome.png [3] http://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/fedora_icon.png

2 1

The Wild Magic License
by Ankur Sinha 11 Jun '11

11 Jun '11

Hi folks, Could someone please look at this license[1] and decide if it can be included in fedora? I found a thread here that says its gpl-incompatible, but I want to just make sure. The j3d library makes use of this. I was in the middle of packaging it. Thanks, Ankur [1] http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/licenses/THIRDPARTY-LICENSE-DISTANCE.txt

2 1

linuxsampler Licensing question
by Brian Monroe 08 Jun '11

08 Jun '11

I was looking at the Audio Creation SIG wiki and noticed that linuxsampler was a program that was listed on there slated for implementation. After reviewing the website it looked like the program had a Commercial exemption for hardware and software. Before we start spending a TON of time looking for a new alternative I wanted to verify that we would not be able to ship this program in a spin. I have attached the copy of the license in this email. Thanks for all of your time and wisdom. -Brian

2 1

DSDP license
by Jerry James 07 Jun '11

07 Jun '11

DSDP (http://www.mcs.anl.gov/hs/software/DSDP/) has the following license. It appears to me to be substantially similar to an MIT license, but IANAL. What should I call this? COPYRIGHT NOTIFICATION (C) COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO This program discloses material protectable under copyright laws of the United States. Permission to copy and modify this software and its documentation is hereby granted, provided that this notice is retained thereon and on all copies or modifications. The University of Chicago makes no representations as to the suitability and operability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as is"; without express or implied warranty. Permission is hereby granted to use, reproduce, prepare derivative works, and to redistribute to others, so long as this original copyright notice is retained. Any publication resulting from research that made use of this software should cite this document. This software was authored by: Steven J. Benson Mathematics and Computer Science Division Argonne National Laboratory Argonne IL 60439 Yinyu Ye Department of Management Science and Engineering Stanford University Stanford, CA U.S.A Any questions or comments on the software may be directed to benson(a)mcs.anl.gov or yinyu-ye(a)stanford.edu Argonne National Laboratory with facilities in the states of Illinois and Idaho, is owned by The United States Government, and operated by the University of Chicago under provision of a contract with the Department of Energy. DISCLAIMER THIS PROGRAM WAS PREPARED AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED BY AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. NEITHER THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT NOR ANY AGENCY THEREOF, NOR THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, NOR ANY OF THEIR EMPLOYEES OR OFFICERS, MAKES ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OR ASSUMES ANY LEGAL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, OR USEFULNESS OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, PRODUCT, OR PROCESS DISCLOSED, OR REPRESENTS THAT ITS USE WOULD NOT INFRINGE PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS. REFERENCE HEREIN TO ANY SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, PROCESS, OR SERVICE BY TRADE NAME, TRADEMARK, MANUFACTURER, OR OTHERWISE, DOES NOT NECESSARILY CONSTITUTE OR IMPLY ITS ENDORSEMENT, RECOMMENDATION, OR FAVORING BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF. THE VIEW AND OPINIONS OF AUTHORS EXPRESSED HEREIN DO NOT NECESSARILY STATE OR REFLECT THOSE OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF. Thank you, -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/

3 5

eGenix public license 1.1.0
by Steve Traylen 07 Jun '11

07 Jun '11

Hi, As part of python26-numpy review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619355 a "new" license cropped up. eGenix public license 1.1.0 http://www.egenix.com/products/eGenix.com-Public-License-1.1.0.pdf It claims to based on the old Python license and that looks to be case. Can this license be approved for Fedora. Steve. -- Steve Traylen

2 1

Patents on Elliptic Curve Cryptography
by Bernie Innocenti 02 Jun '11

02 Jun '11

Apologies if this has been already discussed before, I couldn't find any reference in the archives. The version of OpenSSL shipped by Fedora comes with the ECDSA and ECDH algorithms stripped from the source code. Ubuntu and Debian instead are shipping ECC-enabled versions of OpenSSL. I did some research and found that ECC *might* be covered by a number of patents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECC_patents I was told that the last patent supposedly covering ECC will expire in 2012, but I can't find a reliable source confirming this. Additionally, D. J. Bernstein thinks that ECDSA and ECDH can be *already* implemented without infringing: http://cr.yp.to/ecdh/patents.html As usual in these cases, there's a lot of uncertainty around the ECC patents and few people are willing to publicly discuss the problem. Can anyone help shred some light? -- _ // Bernie Innocenti \X/ http://codewiz.org

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal June 2011