legal January 2012

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

16 participants
13 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

Creative Commons Attribution <_>
by Marcus Lucero 01 Feb '12

01 Feb '12

In your list you have posted that the following are all FSF Free? either YES or NO. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives 3.0 Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No Derivatives 3.0 Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal Can I assume that this also means that the previous versions (1, 2, 2.5) of each of the licenses are also FSF Free? either YES or NO. For example can I assume that FSF Free? YES for versions 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 Full Name Short Name FSF Free? Upstream URL Creative Commons Attribution license CC-BY Yes http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ and then assume that FSF Free? NO for versions 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 of: Full Name FSF Free? Upstream URL Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs No http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ [cid:image001.jpg@01CCE021.89D63040] Marcus Lucero | Data Library Engineer | Palamida, Inc. 215 Second Street, 2nd Fl | San Francisco, CA 94105 Direct dial: 1.415.777.9400 x155 email: mlucero(a)palamida.com<mailto:mlucero@palamida.com> | http://www.palamida.com<http://www.palamida.com/blog>

2 1

packaging pregenerated kdelibs-apidocs
by Rex Dieter 01 Feb '12

01 Feb '12

For reference, 235M kdelibs-apidocs-4.7.4-1.fc16.noarch.rpm So, in an effort to make releng/infra/mirrors happier, I was looking into the possibility of packaging pregenerated content from http://api.kde.org/, rather than respinning kdelibs-apidocs on every kdelibs pkg build. So, here's my general take (please correct or confirm where appropriate): * These -apidocs are generated via doxygen from lgpl sources, so, lgpl applies to -apidocs * what source code requirements are there? is the -apidocs 'preferred form' of the source... the kdelibs source code? or is the pregenerated html docs themselves good enough? if we need matching kdelibs source code, then... One issue raised is that api.kde.org generates their content daily from scm branches, which likely doesn't match exactly the sources that we distribute (say in our kdelibs.src.rpm's). In case we'd try to take scm source snapshots to satisfy source requirements, it not clear (at the moment anyway), which exactly branch/commits are used by upstream either. So, how picky do we need to be, if at all, about satisfying lgpl source requirements to pursue trying to package pregenerated lgpl documentation from api.kde.org ? -- rex

4 8

opinion on libmysqlclient derivatives work
by Haïkel Guémar 30 Jan '12

30 Jan '12

Hi, I noticed that many wrappers over libmysqlclient are distributed under BSD 3c (or alike): * dolphin-connector: BSD 3c * soci-mysql: Boost * poco-mysql: Boost Though, the FOSS exception[1] applies, it may mislead users into thinking that they can link proprietary softwares to these wrappers though the FOSS exception states that all derivatives works should be licensed under one of the approved licenses. Should we request that the following packages changes their license field into GPLv2 ? or at least state somewhere (description, README.fedora ?) that any derivatives works are to be licensed under a FOSS approved license ? best regards, H. [1] http://www.mysql.fr/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/

2 1

F17 feature (english typing booster) request for legal eyeballs.
by Robyn Bergeron 27 Jan '12

27 Jan '12

Greetings, One of the features accepted for F17 by FESCo is English Typing Booster. FESCo has requested in the ticket (https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/756) that they would like to get legal folks to look at the dictionary content and confirm the licensing. Can this be handled via this list? The feature page can be seen here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/english-typing-booster Thanks! :D -Robyn

1 0

dt (data test tool) license
by Jiri Kastner 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

hi, dt tool license is mit-like (see bellow)? thanks jiri kastner COPYRIGHT (c) 1990 - 2007 This Software Provided By Robin's Nest Software Inc. Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in the supporting documentation, and that the name of the author not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission. THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO EVENT SHALL HE BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

2 1

iozone license
by Jiri Kastner 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

from iozone.c: THISVERSION, MODE, " ", " Original Author: William Norcott (wnorcott(a)us.oracle.com)", " 4 Dunlap Drive", " Nashua, NH 03060", " ", " Enhancements: Don Capps (capps(a)iozone.org)", " 7417 Crenshaw", " Plano, TX 75025", " ", " Copyright 1991, 1992, 1994, 1998, 1999, 2002 William D. Norcott", " ", " License to freely use and distribute this software is hereby granted ", " by the author, subject to the condition that this copyright notice ", " remains intact. The author retains the exclusive right to publish ", " derivative works based on this work, including, but not limited to, ", " revised versions of this work", " ", " Other contributors:", " ", " Don Capps (Network Appliance) capps(a)iozone.org", it looks like MIT-like license, isn't it? best regards jiri kastner

3 2

3D-ICE terms and conditions
by Shakthi Kannan 17 Jan '12

17 Jan '12

Hi, I would like to know if the following terms and conditions are acceptable for a software (3D-ICE) released under the GPL license: "IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Any usage of 3D-ICE for research, commercial or other purposes must be properly acknowledged in the resulting products or publications. Specifically, the publications 1 and 2 below must be cited in all cases." Source: http://esl.epfl.ch/page-51743-en.html If not, what does upstream need to do? Please do let me know, Thanks! SK -- Shakthi Kannan http://www.shakthimaan.com

1 0

OpenVera license agreement
by Shakthi Kannan 14 Jan '12

14 Jan '12

Hi, The following license is non-free because it restricts its re-distribution, "on condition that the Recipient uses this license only to develop and/or sell a Program and/or operate a Program as an end user"? http://www.open-vera.com/license/license_a.html Are there other clauses that also limit the freedom(s)? SK -- Shakthi Kannan http://www.shakthimaan.com

1 0

Reusing upstart scripts from Ubuntu for EPEL6 Openstack packages
by Alan Pevec 13 Jan '12

13 Jan '12

Hi, for openstack-* packages in EPEL6 I'd like to reuse upstart jobs from Ubuntu packages e.g. for Swift http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~openstack-ubuntu-packagers/swift/ubuntu/files/… AFAICT those are licensed under ASL2.0 as the whole Swift, right? http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~openstack-ubuntu-packagers/swift/ubuntu/view/h… Is this license compatible with Fedora FPCA, which applies to Fedora/EPEL .spec files and, I assume, other files included directly in SRPM ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#License_of_Fedora_SPEC_Files Thanks, Alan

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal January 2012