legal December 2015

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

4 participants
4 discussions

Henry Spencer's license
by Petr Šabata 06 Mar '23

06 Mar '23

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

5 9

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

umefont license
by Karel Volný 22 Jan '16

22 Jan '16

Hi. I'd like to package Ume-fonts[*]. Unfortunately, I cannot find appropriate license name in good licenses list on the wiki. I thought it is simple "as-is" but I cannot see such record - are my eyes just tired or is it really missing? [*] https://osdn.jp/projects/ume-font/ For the full text from umefont_580.tar.xz/license.html see below. K. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UmeFont license (In English) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is common license of the UmeFont family. UmeFont family provides the following fonts: * Ume Gothic * Ume Gothic C4 * Ume Gothic S4 * Ume Gothic O5 * Ume Gothic C5 * Ume Gothic S5 * Ume P Gothic * Ume P Gothic C4 * Ume P Gothic S4 * Ume P Gothic O5 * Ume P Gothic C5 * Ume P Gothic S5 * Ume UI Gothic * Ume UI Gothic O5 * Ume Mincho * Ume Mincho S3 * Ume P Mincho * Ume P Mincho S3 These fonts are free software. Unlimited permission is granted to use, copy, and distribute it, with or without modification, either commercially and noncommercially. THESE FONTS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY. -- Karel Volný QE BaseOs/Daemons Team Red Hat Czech, Brno tel. +420 532294274 (RH: +420 532294111 ext. 8262074) xmpp kavol(a)jabber.cz :: "Never attribute to malice what can :: easily be explained by stupidity."

3 3

Confusion between GPL-3.0 and GPL-3.0+
by Mattia Verga 11 Dec '15

11 Dec '15

I'm very confused on how to check if a program is GPLv3 or GPLv3+. Looking at gnu.org website it seems (to me) that there's no difference between the two: there's only one license text (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt) and the declaration to insert in source headers says "either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html) So how to distinguish between the two?

3 4

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal December 2015