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
CC0 AppData
by Miro Hrončok
Hi,
when upstream adds CC0 AppData [0], should I add that information to the
License tag?
In the ideal world, all apps will provide AppData and all apps will have
CC0 in the license tag -> sounds crazy.
[0] http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/appdata/
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
9 years, 5 months
At which stage in Fedora does upstream code become "Fedora Software"
by Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
Given that I was redirected to you guys
I'm trying to establish at which stage the upstream code we package is
transformed into "Fedora Software"
is it at packaging stage
is it at iso stage
does it apply only to the defaults
does it take any rights away from the owner doing so
is it when we ( the community ) apply patches to it
etc..
JBG
9 years, 5 months
Rancid 3.0 License Change
by Jeffrey Ollie
Rancid 2.3.8 is licensed as BSD with advertising. However, I was looking
at the 3.0 alphas and noticed that the license added the following clause:
+## 6. Parties packaging or redistributing RANCID MAY NOT distribute altered
+## versions of the etc/rancid.types.base file nor alter how this file is
+## handled. The purpose of this condition is to help keep our support
+## costs down.
It seems to me that this is a potentially non-free addition. The original
sources can be found here:
ftp://ftp.shrubbery.net/pub/rancid/alpha/
--
Jeff Ollie
9 years, 6 months
including full license texts
by Ken Dreyer
In the license guidelines, under the "License Text" section [0], there
is a bit of guidance regarding when to ask upstream to include the
full text of the license or not.
"Common licenses that require including their texts with all
derivative works include ASL 2.0, EPL, BSD and MIT"
I'm wondering what other licenses might fall under this category. For
example, would "GPL+ and Artistic" also be in this list? Lots of Perl
modules are licensed in this way, but they usually don't include a
LICENSE file. I've found that many Perl modules simply have a sentence
"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the same terms as Perl itself." In those cases, should we ask
upstream to include the full License text each time?
- Ken
[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
9 years, 6 months
icon trademarks
by Rave it
Hi,
since some icon themes have trademark'ed and non-free icons problems and will be retired and remove from fedora,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005176
i'm thinking about to do a review request for faience-icon-theme.
https://code.google.com/p/faience-theme/downloads/list
Unfortunately this theme has also some trademark'ed and non-free icons like skype, facebook, twitter, etc.
Is it legitimate for fedora to remove those icons from the theme during the build prozecess in spec file?
Also are icons from opensource applications like ie. firefox, thunderbird free to use in a theme for fedora?
Thanks in advance
Wolfgang Ulbrich aka raveit65
9 years, 6 months
Question about the Supplemental Wallpaper Submission Guidelines
by Ryan Lerch
The guidelines[1] for the supplemental wallpaper submissions state that
you need permission from the author to submit the file. Does anyone know
the reasoning for this? Does it also apply to images that are in the
Public Domain?
I ask because there are many many awesome images in places like the NASA
image library that are public domain. These would be nice to source and
include in the submissions. Do I need to contact NASA to see if their
public domain images are okay for use as a Fedora wallpaper?
Same question if i source an image that is already licensed CC-BY-SA. Do
i need to contact the artist directly? or does the their choice of
licence imply permission for use (and consequently for me to submit).
cheers,
ryanlerch
[1] -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F20_Artwork/Submissions/Supplemental_Wallp...
9 years, 6 months
