Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CAcert.org license
by Tom Callaway
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
7 years, 1 month
SOFA software license
by Sergio Pascual
Hello, I'm interested in packaging a library called SOFA, created by the
IAU (International Astronomy Union). Sadly, they have created their license
for the software, described here:
http://www.iausofa.org/tandc.html
I would like to know if this license is valid for Fedora
Regards, Sergio
--
Sergio Pascual http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr +34 91 394 5018
Departamento de Astrofísica -- Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain)
10 years, 4 months
SciTech MGL Public License Version 1.0
by Mikolaj Izdebski
Hello,
The nasm package includes a scitech.mac file with the following header:
;* The contents of this file are subject to the SciTech MGL Public
;* License Version 1.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file
;* except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of
;* the License at http://www.scitechsoft.com/mgl-license.txt
;*
;* Software distributed under the License is distributed on an
;* "AS IS" basis, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or
;* implied. See the License for the specific language governing
;* rights and limitations under the License.
The link referring to the license is dead (because SciTech Software, Inc.
was acquired by Alt Richmond, Inc.), but the copy of the license apparently
can be found at:
http://ftp.lanet.lv/ftp/mirror/x2ftp/msdos/programming/scitech/license.txt
In my opinion this is a free software license. I would like to ask you to
officially approve it (assign it a tag and include it on the licensing page).
Thank you,
Mikolaj Izdebski
10 years, 4 months
'New' licenses
by Jaromir Capik
Hello.
During the PkgWrangler reviews I found some files
with the following statements which aren't mentioned
on the Fedora Licensing page and I'd like to ask you
to add new entries for them.
1.) FSF-configure / FSF-unlimited / FSF-configure-unlimited
a.)
# Copyright (C) 1992-1996, 1998-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
#
#
# This configure script is free software; the Free Software Foundation
# gives unlimited permission to copy, distribute and modify it.
b.)
# Copyright 1996-2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
#
#
# This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation gives
# unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without
# modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.
2.) The "Verbatim" License
The text can be found here
http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/licenses.html#verbatim
Please, let me know.
Thanks,
Jaromir.
--
Jaromir Capik
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
Software Engineer / BaseOS
Email: jcapik(a)redhat.com
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic
IC: 27690016
10 years, 4 months
Choosing appropriate copyright and licences for ICC profiles
by Richard Hughes
In the shared-color-profiles project upstream we take some trivial
well-known data e.g.
"2.2 D65 0.6400 0.3300 0.297361 0.2100 0.7100 0.627355 0.1500 0.0600
0.075285" and then create a binary ICC profile with some added
metadata. The binary file can then be embedded into jpeg documents or
used standalone in programs like Krita and GIMP.
The added metadata are things like a profile description (which is
optionally translated) and what space it's supposed to represent e.g.
sRGB.
The colorspace co-ordinates are in the public domain, and so I'm
wondering what copyright and licence to choose for the resulting
binary blob.
The binary file is actually created on koji/brew and so I'm not sure
if Public Domain is the right thing to use as I'm aware that some
countries can't do this. Is CC0 a safer/saner choice?
Logically the profile copyright string should be "No copyright" and
the licence "Public Domain" to match the source but treating law
logically isn't always a good idea. :)
Can anyone advise what to put in the profile header. Thanks.
Richard Hughes.
10 years, 4 months
man-pages-* license tags
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen
Hi,
I was looking at the license tags of man-pages translations:
$ repoquery --qf "%{name}: %{license}" man-pages-\*
man-pages: GPLv2+ and GPL+ and BSD and MIT and Copyright only and IEEE
man-pages-cs: GFDL and GPL+
man-pages-de: GPL+
man-pages-es: IEEE
man-pages-es-extra: IEEE
man-pages-fr: GPL+
man-pages-it: IEEE
man-pages-ja: Freely redistributable without restriction
man-pages-ko: Copyright only
man-pages-pl: GPL+
man-pages-ru: BSD and GPL+ and MIT and GFDL
man-pages-zh-CN: GFDL
and started wondering about the License inheritance from man-pages.
It seems to me since they are largely derived from the man-pages package
that the license tag for them should be very similar to or the same
as the license tag of the main man-pages package. Or is it more subtle?
I actually jumped in and fixed -fr, -es and -it already,
but I thought I better check here first before filing bugs
to spam all the other man-pages-* owners.
Jens
10 years, 4 months
License question
by Jitka Plesníková
Hello,
I'm reviewing perl-Tk, which is under "GPL+ or Artistic" license.
However, the part of the code is under the University of California.
It looks like BSD for me, but none Fedora examples matches.
What is the proper License: tag to use in the RPM?
Thanks,
Jitka
--
This software is copyrighted by the Regents of the University of
California, Sun Microsystems, Inc., and other parties. The following
terms apply to all files associated with the software unless explicitly
disclaimed in individual files.
The authors hereby grant permission to use, copy, modify, distribute,
and license this software and its documentation for any purpose, provided
that existing copyright notices are retained in all copies and that this
notice is included verbatim in any distributions. No written agreement,
license, or royalty fee is required for any of the authorized uses.
Modifications to this software may be copyrighted by their authors
and need not follow the licensing terms described here, provided that
the new terms are clearly indicated on the first page of each file where
they apply.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR DISTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY
FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, ITS DOCUMENTATION, OR ANY
DERIVATIVES THEREOF, EVEN IF THE AUTHORS HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
THE AUTHORS AND DISTRIBUTORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY WARRANTIES,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. THIS SOFTWARE
IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, AND THE AUTHORS AND DISTRIBUTORS HAVE
NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR
MODIFICATIONS.
GOVERNMENT USE: If you are acquiring this software on behalf of the
U.S. government, the Government shall have only "Restricted Rights"
in the software and related documentation as defined in the Federal
Acquisition Regulations (FARs) in Clause 52.227.19 (c) (2). If you
are acquiring the software on behalf of the Department of Defense, the
software shall be classified as "Commercial Computer Software" and the
Government shall have only "Restricted Rights" as defined in Clause
252.227-7013 (c) (1) of DFARs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
authors grant the U.S. Government and others acting in its behalf
permission to use and distribute the software in accordance with the
terms specified in this license.
10 years, 4 months
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] License clarification dxflib
by Volker Fröhlich
Dear Andrew!
Thank you for your prompt response.
The problem is, the paragraph in question circumscribes the terms of the
GPL and it fails to do it properly. That's what's causing the problem.
Besides that, the term "Open Source Edition" is not clarified, as far as
I could see.
If the license stated in this file does not apply, can you please remove
it from the tarball and just include a copy of the FSF license instead?
Regards,
Volker Fröhlich
On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 20:36 +0100, Andrew Mustun wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The dxflib Open Source Edition is licensed under the terms of the
> GPL v2 without anything to add or remove from that.
>
> The paragraph below is meant to clarify what GPL / Open Source
> means. If your application is released under the GPL v2, the
> commercial license contained in file dxflib_commercial_license.txt
> simply does not apply at all for you.
>
> Regards,
> Andrew Mustun
>
> On 10/31/12 8:24 PM, Volker Froehlich wrote:
> > Dear RibbonSoft!
> >
> > I'm a packager with the Fedora GNU/Linux distribution. I'm packaging
> > SAGA GIS (https://sourceforge.net/projects/saga-gis/), which uses
> > dxflib.
> >
> > I read that the "Open Source Edition" of dxflib was licensed under the
> > terms of GPL version 2. While this is clearly stated in the headers of
> > the source code, the file dxflib_commercial_license.txt causes us
> > headache.
> >
> > """
> > 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
> > (i.e., any Product(s) and/or parts, components, portions thereof
> > developed using GPL licensed software, including dxflib Open Source
> > Edition, must be licensed under the terms of the GPL, and the GPL-based
> > source code must be made available upon request).
> > """
> >
> > Tom Callaway of Red Hat found this statement was not in line with the
> > GPL and therefore non-free:
> >
> > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-October/001734.html
> >
> > It'd be great if we could work this out together. A clear license
> > situation would allow to include dxflib in Fedora and other
> > distributions that care about software freedom.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Volker Fröhlich
> >
> >
>
10 years, 4 months
AFPL license
by Bastien Nocera
Heya,
The libmusicbrainz5 package in Fedora uses sources for the
musicbrainz.org project, and contains the xmlParser.cpp and xmlParser.h
files which say:
* Copyright (c) 2002, Business-Insight
* <a href="http://www.Business-Insight.com">Business-Insight</a>
* All rights reserved.
* See the file "AFPL-license.txt" about the licensing terms
Apart from the fact that the license file is missing (Christophe, can
you go and tell upstream about this?), it seems that this refers to the
Aladdin Free Public License:
http://www.artifex.com/downloads/doc/Public.htm
This license isn't in the list at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing
And I don't know whether it is a free license, and whether it is
compatible with the LGPLv2+ which the rest of the sources are under.
If the license ends up being problematic, I will have to replace the
library's functionality in a couple of packages.
Cheers
PS: Please CC: me as I am not subscribed to the list
10 years, 4 months
