Henry Spencer's license
by Petr Šabata
Dear legal,
While checking the contents of our `perl' package, I noticed the following:
(...)
/* NOTE: this is derived from Henry Spencer's regexp code, and should not
* confused with the original package (see point 3 below). Thanks, Henry!
*/
/* Additional note: this code is very heavily munged from Henry's version
* in places. In some spots I've traded clarity for efficiency, so don't
* blame Henry for some of the lack of readability.
*/
/* The names of the functions have been changed from regcomp and
* regexec to pregcomp and pregexec in order to avoid conflicts
* with the POSIX routines of the same names.
*/
(...)
* pregcomp and pregexec -- regsub and regerror are not used in perl
*
* Copyright (c) 1986 by University of Toronto.
* Written by Henry Spencer. Not derived from licensed software.
*
* Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any
* purpose on any computer system, and to redistribute it freely,
* subject to the following restrictions:
*
* 1. The author is not responsible for the consequences of use of
* this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise
* from defects in it.
*
* 2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either
* by explicit claim or by omission.
*
* 3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not
* be misrepresented as being the original software.
*
**** Alterations to Henry's code are...
****
**** Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
**** 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
**** by Larry Wall and others
****
**** You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
**** License or the Artistic License, as specified in the README file.
(...)
You can see the whole file here:
https://metacpan.org/source/SHAY/perl-5.20.1/regexec.c
I looked but couldn't find any common name for this license
of Henry's. Is it on our list? Is it free? What name should
I use in the License tag?
Thank you,
Petr
2 weeks, 3 days
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
tktable license clarification
by Antonio Trande
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
tktable package is newly under review; can someone clarify to me how
to identify its license? (license file attached)
In particular, i have a doubt about these "special notes":
*************************************************************
SPECIAL NOTES:
This software is also falls under the bourbon_ware clause v2:
This software is free, but should you find this software useful in your
daily work and would like to compensate the author, donations in the form
of aged bourbon and scotch are welcome by the author. The user may feel
exempt from this clause if they are below drinking age or think the
author
has already partaken of too many drinks.
*************************************************************
Thanks.
- --
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: 0x565E653C
Check on https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWI3qhAAoJEF5tK7VWXmU84v8H/3amNotpYhuJ7yJ/i7YBON38
jB48gXy2FmSnjJ535wIzm2ls6MFrzvqweqvMd48i5iPedLSPiTEd1FAwC0h+u8ZI
RZMH/RLtNB9k3iZyfSqbqml5kRg2fnOsMOgwssSnkZ1bZTq2/BvLWXURDYg8bW63
apy4/k7tumHv/QK/yK5yqUlWTxZVEoaxRpb3HmIz2OOFVigk7N2zzPcqwrE3T6Um
hFBdYu/vowWayv3qD1/eoEvyf1x21z1ZAUeG9Yl26apCQRbSq6ajSoNByQ9m9k6V
G5Jb49vDJj5Fymf165vXPriosf7yFQcOMcUFAByrRGdaRDEtAwaO1UAPtWYf7k0=
=JDM2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
7 years, 5 months
reg. fedora name as trademark
by Sindhu S
hi
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?
Thanks!
--
-Sindhu
7 years, 5 months
Packaging of PlayOnLinux
by Jiří Konečný
Hello,
I want to ask if PlayOnLinux could be packaged to Fedora. This program
has list of proprietary programs which are not downloaded but could be
installed if you give it setup.exe file.
Also it downloads Windows redistributable when user explicitly wants to
install program (which using this redist) or given redistributable.
If this is not "legal" in terms of Fedora how it's differ from
OpenSource software which are using not-OpenSource addons? Example of
this could be https://marketplace.firefox.com .
Thank you for answers
Jirka Konecny
7 years, 5 months
