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. :)
Hi Fedora legals,
I would like to ask you if you can help me and Leif from Tanukisoftware.
They had some modification to GPLv2 which make their product
Tanukiwrapper non-free. It was reviewed here year ago:
Their motivation is stated below.
If you can help him to clear the license, I will be very glad.
Please cc in reply Leif as he is not subscribed to this mailing list.
I would say (but IANAL) that best solution is to release it under GPLv2
*and* MIT license and state that all files are licensed under GPLv2, but
files foo and directory bar, which are licensed under MIT (Leif can you
state which parts are under MIT?).
However, I'm not sure how to enforce presence of startup banner in license.
Thanks in advance
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Java Service Wrapper
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:03:05 +0900
From: Leif Mortenson <leif.mortenson(a)tanukisoftware.com>
To: Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com>
Thank you for your quick reply. Searing, I found you old email. My
sincere apologies for letting that slip through the cracks.
The changes we made in the Community License were simply to add that
we wanted our startup banner to remain, and to include required
references to a 3rd party MIT license. There was no intention to
cause any problems or make it incompatible with GPL2.
If you could please put me in touch with your legal team as you
originally offered, I would be happy to work with them to get this
Tanuki Software, Ltd.
2011/8/15 Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com>:
> On 08/15/2011 05:04 AM, Leif Mortenson wrote:
>> I am with Tanuki Software, the company which owns and develops the
>> Java Service Wrapper. Recently a fork of a very old version of the
>> Wrapper was made without changing the name of the project. This is
>> very confusing to our customers and we have been unsuccessfully trying
>> to get in touch with them about changing the name they are using.
>> It appears that you are working on adding this to your Fedora project.
>> We are hoping to get this resolved with a simple name change. Once
>> that is done I would like to avoid causing you or your users any
> I'm afraid that I can do very little about it. The package name in
> Fedora should match upstream. And that is "Java service wrapper".
> So please talk to ivertex - the upstream maintainer.
>> problems or confusion with the package being renamed. I would
> Future rename in Fedora is without problem.
>> If you would like to get an official Java Service Wrapper into Fedora,
>> the Community edition is GPL2 and we would be happy to work with you
>> if any changes are needed to make it ready to be a package.
> Well you can. In fact I tried to get original Tanukiwrapper into Fedora,
> but I had legal problem. You distribute it under GPLv2 plus your own
> license prefix, which make it effectively non-free.
> I sent emails to info(a)tanukisoftware.com, sales(a)tanukisoftware.com and
> support(a)tanukisoftware.com following email.
>> I would like to maintain and package Tanukiwrapper for Fedora. It has
>> been there in past, but has been orphaned recently and is not present in
>> last Fedora 14.
>> Last packaged version is 3.2.3, which has been released under BSD license.
>> I would like to pack latest greatest version of community version of
>> Tanukiwrapper, but I find some problems with wording of "Community
>> License Agreement" (CLA).
>> Your changes to GPLv2 make the CLA non-free license, which is probably
>> not intended.
>> You may take a look at quick Fedora review at:
>> May I ask you to change the text of license? I see several possibilities:
>> 1) Either by dropping your prefix of GPLv2 and make it GPLv2 only,
>> 2) or by available as GPLv2 or some license of your own (so I use is
>> under GPLv2 only)
>> 3) or reword your CLA and clear up the term "Product" and put back "How
>> to Apply" section. Other actions may be needed, I'm not lawyer, but I
>> can get you in touch with somebody from Fedora Legals.
> I very strongly believe that this fork happened because of this legal
> problem. And if you help to resolve it, so the Tanukiwrapper will be
> re-distributable again, then there will be no reason for the fork.
> Miroslav Suchy
> Red Hat Satellite Engineering
Tanuki Software, Ltd.
6-16-7-1001 Nishi-Kasai, Edogawa-ku
Tokyo 134-0088 Japan
The contents of this email, including all related responses, files and
attachments transmitted with it (collectively referred to as “this
Email”), are intended solely for the use of the individual/entity to
whom/which they are addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
legally privileged information. This Email may not be disclosed or
forwarded to anyone else without authorization from the originator of
this Email. If you have received this Email in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete all copies from your system. Please
note that the views or opinions presented in this Email are those of
the author and may not necessarily represent those of Tanuki Software.
The recipient should check this Email and any attachments for the
presence of any viruses. Tanuki Software accepts no liability for any
damage caused by any virus/error transmitted by this Email.
The GMT source tarball includes some non-GPL compatible code that I've
attached here. It is not compiled in unless you specify --enable-triangle.
My question is, do I have to pull this from source tarball to avoid shipping
it in the src.rpm? Thanks!
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
I run into rpmlint error about incorrect fsf address. My solution was
report it to upstream and left incorrect address in my packages. I
didn't block review of new packages because of it.
Some maintainers are blocking reviews and they are patching license file
with correct address.
What's the correct solution? Could you post it on fedora-devel list?
Rpmlint might offer better explanation or change it to warning:
Thanks for answer,
BaseOS team Brno
Hello. I am interested in using Fedora in both work and home office environments. Is Fedora structured in such a way as to abide by US software patent laws, making it safe for work in the US? I've mainly used a couple other Linux distributions. In both cases, I found it very difficult to determine whether or not the distro included software (such as multimedia codecs) which were illegal to use in the United States. Since I am interested in using Linux at work, I would like some kind of assurance that at the very least a fresh install is free of patent-infringing software. In the past, I've worked with other distros that made the task of reaching out and grabbing whatever codec was needed (regardless of it's legality) almost automatic, which is nearly the opposite situation I'm looking for. I figured since Fedora is backed by Red Hat, a US company, perhaps the project's approach would be a bit more acceptable for the complicated patent law situation in
I saw this page, which was informative: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Software_Patents. Yet, the disclaimer made it clear this was not necessarily Fedora's official stance on these matters, so I was compelled to write an email. Thanks for any help and/or clarification.