legal October 2013

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

11 participants
6 discussions

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CAcert.org license
by Tom Callaway 11 Feb '16

11 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

winetricks
by T.C. Hollingsworth 31 Jul '15

31 Jul '15

winetricks [1] is free software, but I was originally under the impression that it was ineligible for inclusion in Fedora because it is used primarily to download and install non-free software. (That is not it's only function, though--it also does some registry hacks and can manage multiple WINEPREFIXes.) However, some members of the community disagree [2] and say that it might be eligible for Fedora, so we'd like confirmation one way or the other. Thanks! -T.C. [1] http://winetricks.org/ [2] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992#c40

5 7

Blessing Request on a Modified LGPL v2.1
by Jeff Backus 31 Oct '13

31 Oct '13

Hi, I am working on a package that I hope will be incorporated into Fedora for a window manager called Notion. Notion is based on a window manager by called Ion3 and is released the same license that Ion3 was released under. This license is version 2.1 of the LGPL with (what I perceive to be) slight modifications. These modifications place restrictions on derivative packages to prevent them from being confused with Ion3. The project home page is here: http://notion.sourceforge.net The LICENSE file can be found here: http://sourceforge.net/p/notion/notion/ci/master/tree/LICENSE Is this license sufficiently open to meet Fedora's requirements? Am I correct in understanding that the packages License: field should say "LGPLv2 with exceptions"? Thanks in advance! Regards, Jeff -- Jeff Backus jeff.backus(a)gmail.com http://github.com/jsbackus

1 0

Trademark issue: "ubuntu" in package name
by Sandro Mani 17 Oct '13

17 Oct '13

Hello, I've got a pending review request for "ubuntu-keyring" (see [1]) where the reviewer correctly pointed out that there may be a trademark issue with the package name containing the word "ubuntu". I've tried contacting Canonical to ask whether we are allowed to use ubuntu in package names, but they have not replied to date (inquiry was sent 10 days ago). This potential trademark issue also affects the package "ubuntu-title-fonts", see [2]. I would like to ask whether anyone here has already dealt with a precedent issue of this kind, and if so how such issues were resolved. Specifically, maybe someone has already approached Canonical for such issues? Thanks, Sandro [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009998 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014065

7 14

FIPL for freeimage
by Bruno Wolff III 14 Oct '13

14 Oct '13

freeimage has changed its licensing from when it was last updated. It is now GPLv2 or GPLv3 or FIPL (http://freeimage.sourceforge.net/freeimage-license.txt) Should I just GPLv2 or GPLv3 for Fedora or should I include the FIPL as well? (FIPL looks to be copyleft with patent grants similar to GPLv3.)

2 1

Hosting Fedora cloud images
by Richard W.M. Jones 01 Oct '13

01 Oct '13

I want to host some Fedora cloud images on a website for people to download. These are constructed using a kickstart which just installs @Core into a VM, as simple as it gets. To comply with licensing, I was planning to point people who wanted source back to Fedora, since we don't make any modifications. Also I will publish the kickstart file and the short (20 line) shell script that makes the images. However the question arises if we need to do anything else from a licensing / providing source / other legal point of view? For example, is it a problem that Fedora deletes old SRPMs? Is it a problem if we don't host the source ourselves? Does the trademark exception cover our (non-commercial, community) offering, assuming I comply with the required terms here? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Usage_That_Does_N… Basically, in the words of Donald Rumsfeld, are there any "unknown unknowns" I should be aware of? Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW

3 3

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal October 2013