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
What's Fedora's stance on linking GPL-only libraries into the same
process as a library which is considered GPL-incompatible (such as
4-clause BSD) if this linking happens rather indirectly?
We currently link psql against both libreadline and libcrypto/libssl
(OpenSSL), so if that is okay, more indirect linking should be
acceptable as well.
However, I'm not sure I'd appreciate that if I were a GPL-only library
author who chose that license deliberately (perhaps even with a desire
to sell alternative licensing), and some intermediate libraries makes my
work available under a more permissive license, only wrapped in a
different programming interface.
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
I am packaging CPAN module App::s2p to Fedora.
The license should be the standard Perl license (GPL+ or Artistic)
During review , the following license was found in man page of
COPYRIGHT and LICENSE
This program is free and open software. You may use, modify,
distribute, and sell this program (and any modified variants) in any
way you wish, provided you do not restrict others from doing the same.
Could you state whether the following terms are acceptable for Fedora
and what License tag should be used?
I need to update license in the RPM.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Creative Commons is pushing the use of their 4.0 license (which I have no qualms with). Has/can legal review this new license as a drop-in replacement for the 3.0 license we are currently using for Fedora Documentation (with the waiving the rights to enforce Section 4d)? I'm unsure of any benefits or regressions we would have (I haven't personally compared the two and IANAL).
- -- Eric
Eric "Sparks" Christensen
sparks(a)redhat.com - sparks(a)fedoraproject.org
097C 82C3 52DF C64A 50C2 E3A3 8076 ABDE 024B B3D1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I'm working on a project that's currently gpl2+ licensed  and we
want to include some code from a gpl3 project . This code will be an
isolated utility used to generate documentation from data contained in
other source files.
I know that if we went forward with this, the project would need to be
distributed as gpl3 but I have some questions around the specifics:
Would all the source in our project need to be re-licensed as gpl3 or is
it sufficient to have the project license as gpl3 and the existing
source files as gpl2+?
Assuming that it is possible to keep the existing gpl2+ source as
gpl2+, would it be possible to change the project license back to gpl2+
in the future if we were to remove any gpl3 code?