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
8 years, 2 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
8 years, 6 months
winetricks
by T.C. Hollingsworth
winetricks [1] 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 [2] and say that it
might be eligible for Fedora, so we'd like confirmation one way or the
other.
Thanks!
-T.C.
[1] http://winetricks.org/
[2] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992#c40
8 years, 8 months
Privacy policy
by Matthias Clasen
Hi,
we are working on improving the abrt integration in the Fedora
Workstation for F22. Part of this is adding a 'automatic bug reporting'
setting to the privacy panel in the control center (see the last mockup
in
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gnome-design-team/gnome-mockups/master/... )
The design suggests that we should include a link to privacy policy of
the OS vendor here. I've been pointed at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:PrivacyPolicy as the existing
Fedora privacy policy, but that seems entirely focused on Fedora the
project, not on the OS itself. It also does not mention coredumps (and
the associated data we may collect) at all. Could you add a section
about that here, or should there be a separate page describing the
privacy expectations when using Fedora, the OS ?
Matthias
9 years, 1 month
About automated scratch-build
by Pierre-Yves Chibon
Hi,
Earlier this week we pushed in production a system that automatically downloads
new sources of projects packaged in Fedora, adjust the spec file in distgit to
match the new version and runs a scratch build on koji.
The system takes the new-release information from anitya [1], opens a ticket on
bugzilla for package flagged for monitoring on pkgdb and report whether the
scratch build was successful or not in that bugzilla ticket opened.
Today, I was asked the question whether there could be some legal issue about
automatically downloading new sources and running scratch builds with them.
I guess this could be a problem if a project suddenly went closed source or
started including non-free component(s).
On the other hand, I do not see this any different from scratch build performed
on packages before their review on bugzilla.
To clear this, could I have legal's opinion on this question?
Thanks,
Pierre
9 years, 1 month
