legal September 2013

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

11 participants
12 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

CC0 AppData
by Miro Hrončok 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

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

2 1

At which stage in Fedora does upstream code become "Fedora Software"
by Jóhann B. Guðmundsson 27 Sep '13

27 Sep '13

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

2 4

Rancid 3.0 License Change
by Jeffrey Ollie 26 Sep '13

26 Sep '13

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

2 1

A license inquiry
by Christopher Meng 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

Hi, Someone asked me to help package EPICS. http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics However its license is not documented, can someone tell me if it's acceptable or not? http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics/license/open.php Thanks. Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng Always playing in Fedora Project http://cicku.me

1 1

including full license texts
by Ken Dreyer 12 Sep '13

12 Sep '13

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

2 2

Enable SRP
by Fabian Deutsch 11 Sep '13

11 Sep '13

Hey, currently SRP is disabled in GnuTLS [0] the reason for this decision were legal concerns. Is there any change on the view on SRP, can it maybe now be enabled? Thanks fabian --- [0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006702

1 0

icon trademarks
by Rave it 08 Sep '13

08 Sep '13

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

2 1

Question about the Supplemental Wallpaper Submission Guidelines
by Ryan Lerch 04 Sep '13

04 Sep '13

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_Wallpap…

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal September 2013