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. :)
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?
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
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
I'm packaging a ruby gem under Apache 2.0 license, and I asked upstream
to include license text file, pointing to LicensingGuidelines at .
Upstream developer has a questions, I don't know how to answer :
"Do you require the license text only in the git repository as a
LICENSE.txt file or also as part of the gem bundle? I assume I don't
need the full Apache 2.0 license, but simply the extract that can be
found at the bottom of this project's README. Is that correct?"
Is the brief "extract" at end of the  enough for gems (and I can
include full text in the Fedora package)? In many projects the gem
archive use to contain only the ruby files, to be as small as possible.