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. :)
winetricks  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  and say that it
might be eligible for Fedora, so we'd like confirmation one way or the
There recently was this "event" which claims to be a Fedora supported event.
I can't find anything in the trademark guidelines that allow the use
of any Fedora trademarks or the claim of support from the Fedora
Project without written permission for an event such as this. I might
be missing something but since more such "events" seem to be
anticipated I would like to get a clarification about where things
like this fall in the trademark guidelines.
Since this sort of event is clearly not remotely like those described
in the waiver granted to ambassadors for promotional events
is there any other place in this document that allows ambassadors (or
anyone else) to do this without permission?
I want to package QBS
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979124). QBS uses the
standard QT LGPL exceptions.
The exception file is identical with the ones from qt-creator or qt (or
any other qt package). So can i use "License: LGPLv2 with exceptions"
I attached the exception file in case it needs further review.
BerkeleyDB has recently been relicensed by Oracle (to AGPLv3) -- Debian
discussion as covered by LWN here:
Given that the older 5.x version is used by multiple packages (most notably
RPM), not all of which are AGPLv3-compatible, perhaps we need to discuss
the implications of this re-license?
1. Fork BDB 5.x
2. Audit the dependents to see which have incompatible licenses (off the
top of my head, GPLv2-only, GPLv3, GPLv3+ -- GPLv2+ will simply become
3. ... ?
Here are the packages we currently have that build against libdb-devel:
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma(a)fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments