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
winetricks
by T.C. Hollingsworth
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
7 years, 7 months
Usage discrimination in Akismet (WordPress Plugin)
by Jochen Schmitt
Hello,
I'm currently working with a own WordPress blog and have to find out, that the
WordPress plugin is only free for personal use.
In the readme.txt file you find the folllowing inforatioons:
License: GPLv2 or later
PS: You'll need an [Akismet.com API key](http://akismet.com/get/) to use it. Keys are free for personal blogs, with paid subscriptions available for businesses and commercial sites.
The above cited sentence told be, that commercial sites have to pay
a fee, if they wnat to use that plugin.
Becuase this violate the Fedora policy, I would like your mind
about this situation.
Best Regards:
Jochen Schmitt
9 years, 11 months
mysql-python
by Ken Dreyer
Since the MySQL-python package is licensed GPLv2+, does that mean that
any projects which happen to import "mysql-python" must be released
under the GPL?
- Ken
10 years
License doubts during review of the bijiben package
by Mathieu Bridon
Hi,
I'm reviewing bijiben:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919265
Pierre-Yves is both the submitter of the package as well as the upstream
developer.
The review is in a state where I think the package can be approved,
except for the license.
I'm having doubts about the value of the license tag, but that's mostly
because it's slightly more complicated than what I've dealt with until
now.
I've looked at all the source files, and the result appears to me to be:
GPLv3+ and (LGPLv2 or LGPLv3) and LGPLv2+
- The LGPLv2+ files are libgd, which is (by design) bundled into
bijiben.
- The "LGPLv2 or LGPLv3" files come from Evolution
- The GPLv3+ is most of the software, it is the source code for bijiben
Pierre-Yves simplified that to:
GPLv3+ and LGPLv3 and LGPLv2+
Which I don't think is a problem.
Could anyone have a look and confirm that the License tag is correct?
I'm sure I'm being overly worried for no reason and it's a very simple
case, but as I said, I've never reviewed a package with so many licenses
before. :)
Thanks,
--
Mathieu
10 years
Cube game engine license
by Rahul Sundaram
Hi
I have attached the license. Can you confirm whether it is free or
non-free? Thanks
Rahul
10 years
