legal May 2013

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

15 participants
14 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

winetricks
by T.C. Hollingsworth 01 Aug '15

01 Aug '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

Starting a Project
by Benjamin Adams 02 Jun '13

02 Jun '13

Hello Everyone, I'm looking to start a project on my own. I would like to grow it to a stable state and a clear direction. Once it's built I would like to integrate it into Fedora. Question is what License would work best for the project to integrate with Redhat's Open source model? Not sure if this really matters but I know Fedora doesn't include some software because of licensing issues. aka: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items?rd=ForbiddenItems I'm guessing I can pick any of these: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing As long as it's FSF = yes Thanks Ben

2 1

Including GPL code in the source RPM only, for an ASL 2.0 package
by Pádraig Brady 30 May '13

30 May '13

I'm currently packaging python-subunit at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/908842 This is an ASL 2.0 project, but there is a single python file used at build time only that is GPLv2. I.E. this file is shipping in the tarball (srpm), but removed from the rpms. Is this a valid thing to do, or do we need a tarball with this file removed? Note even if I wanted to license the package as "ASL 2.0 and GPLv2", I don't think that's possible, as they're incompatible licenses: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html thanks, Pádraig.

2 1

Inconsistent licensing
by Orion Poplawski 29 May '13

29 May '13

I'm packaging StarCluster for Fedora (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949371) and I'm running into some questions about the licensing. README.rst and setup.py and PKG-INFO indicates LGPLv3 The only python files with a header indicate: starcluster/progressbar.py: LGPL (v2.1 or later) starcluster/sshutils/scp.py: LGPL (v2.1 or later) And then of course there are the jquery bundled js libs, which are dual MIT and GPLv2: ./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.js: * Dual licensed under the MIT or GPL Version 2 licenses. ./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.js: * http://jquery.org/license ./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.js: * Released under the MIT, BSD, and GPL Licenses. ./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.js: * Released under the MIT, BSD, and GPL Licenses. ./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.js: * Released under the MIT license by IOLA, December 2007. ./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.js: * Released under the MIT license by Ole Laursen, October 2009. ./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.navigate.js:Licensed under the MIT License ~ http://threedubmedia.googlecode.com/files/MIT-LICENSE.txt ./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.navigate.js: * Dual licensed under the MIT (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php) ./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.navigate.js: * and GPL (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php) licenses. So, does: LGPLv3 and (MIT or GPLv2) cover it? I don't like that the (few) license headers don't match the other license comments. -- Orion Poplawski 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

2 1

JTF license agreement
by Rahul Sundaram 16 May '13

16 May '13

Hi Is this free? http://jtf.acm.org/license.pdf Rahul

3 5

Have a question about using Fedora14 for a university project and publishing the results
by Harikiran Enna 14 May '13

14 May '13

Hi Fedora Team, I am a student studying Masters in Computer Science at one of the universities in Minnesota, USA. As part of a starred paper for the university, I wanted to perform some oracle database performance tests on fedora operating system. For this purpose, I have downloaded Fedora 14 (free software from web ) and installed my Oracle Database software for performing some performance tests. I have included my test results in my paper with mention of using Fedora 14 operating system. My university may decide to publish the paper and I would like to make sure that my university publishing my paper would not conflict with Fedora 14 license agreement. I have the following information in my system when I do "uname -a". Linux hari 2.6.35.6-45.fc14.i686 #1 SMP Mon Oct 18 23:56:17 UTC 2010 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux your suggestions would be a great help. Thanks, Hari 612 876 5992 -- *The Greatest Success We'll Know Is Helping Others Succeed and Grow*.--* Gregory Scott Reid *

3 2

Which BSD variant is this? (pixz)
by Richard W.M. Jones 08 May '13

08 May '13

License: https://github.com/vasi/pixz/blob/master/LICENSE Debian says it's "BSD-2-Clause": http://ftp-master.metadata.debian.org/changelogs//main/p/pixz/pixz_1.0.2-1_… It appears to be the same as this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD?rd=Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD except without the final paragraph. So it's just "BSD"? 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

2 1

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] License clarification for xvt
by Mamoru TASAKA 07 May '13

07 May '13

Hello: > On 05/04/2013 10:22 AM, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > > Hello: > > > > On the review request for xfe: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150 > > a question was raised on the license of xvt/xvt.c in > > xfe-1.34.tar.gz, which says: > > > > /* Copyright 1992, 1994 John Bovey, University of Kent at Canterbury. > > * > > * Redistribution and use in source code and/or executable forms, with > > * or without modification, are permitted provided that the following > > * condition is met: > > * > > * Any redistribution must retain the above copyright notice, this > > * condition and the following disclaimer, either as part of the > > * program source code included in the redistribution or in human- > > * readable materials provided with the redistribution. > > * > > * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS". Any express or implied > > * warranties concerning this software are disclaimed by the copyright > > * holder to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. In no > > * event shall the copyright-holder be liable for any damages of any > > * kind, however caused and on any theory of liability, arising in any > > * way out of the use of, or inability to use, this software. > > * > > * ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > * > > * In other words, do not misrepresent my work as your own work, and > > * do not sue me if it causes problems. Feel free to do anything else > > * you wish with it. > > */ > > > > I think this can be MIT, however I would appreciate if someone would check > > the license above. > > It is BSD. I've added it to the variant list. > > ~tom Thank you for clarification, spot. Regards, Mamoru

1 0

Q:Trademarked logos in zocial font.
by Alec Leamas 07 May '13

07 May '13

As has been discussed on fedora-devel, I have an issue with the zocial font package. The question is if this font because of it's use of trademarked logos can't be used in Fedora. Any help out there? --alec Links: Font overview: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/tmp/zocial.png Discussion on devel: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-May/182194.html Review request (needing update, I know): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956120 FPC ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/277

2 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal May 2013