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. :)
7 years, 1 month
reg. fedora name as trademark
by Sindhu S
I noticed there is a website called usefedora.com that sells a product to
make online schools. Is this a violation of any trademark that redhat might
hold with regards to the Fedora name?
7 years, 5 months
by T.C. Hollingsworth
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
7 years, 7 months
Transitive Grace Period Public LIcense ("TGGPL") v. 1.0
by Eric Smith
Is this license, used by Tahoe-LAFS, acceptable for Fedora (and EPEL)?
As you can see, the file starts with a list of exception clauses
granting additional permissions, similar to some of the common
GPL+exceptions licenses. The license body looks OK to my non-expert
eyes; the main differences seem to be that the copyleft requirements
are allowed under some circumstances to be delayed for up to a year
(section 1c), and the external deployment provisions (section 5),
which I think are similar to the AGPL.
If there are any issues with the license preventing it from being
packaged for Fedora, I think the author may be amenable to working
8 years, 3 months
UROnode licensing question
by Jaroslav Skarvada
I wanted to package UROnode, it seemed to be GPLv2+ licensed amateur radio
software (mirror ), but I came across the following weird text in the
package (in addition to the GPLv2 text):
> URONode is free to use around the globe with the exception of:
> anywhere in or by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> anywhere in or by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
> Because of their tactics, any of my software is not to be used in these two
> states. Your cooperation is appreciated..
> - N1URO
can be such package included in Fedora?
thanks & regards
8 years, 3 months
Claims about Fair License
by Vassilis Palassopoulos
I was searching to find more information about the Fair License and found out it was mentioned here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
The entry in the fedora wiki says it's FSF free, GPLv2 compliant, GPLv3 compliant but I can't find any source for that (e.g. in FSF or GNU website like https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html ). There's an article in wikipedia but it's missing any citation towards these claims. The license is in the list of approved OSI licenses as one can see http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical but that doesn't say much in regards to the 3 claims.
The closest thing I could find is the fact that in an OSI board meeting the WTFPL was considered redundant to the Fair License http://opensource.org/minutes20090304
FSF considers WTFPL a free software and GPL-compatible license https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#WTFPL
Personally, after reading the license, I don't think that the claims are wrong but I'm not an expert and determining the status of a license through the status of another license being used as a proxy could be risky.
Are there any reliable sources towards these claims? Is there a reasoning on why they are mentioned in the fedora wiki article (and if so I'd be interested to know what the reasoning is) or does it require more research before stating these claims?
8 years, 4 months