legal August 2015

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

4 participants
7 discussions

Henry Spencer's license
by Petr Šabata 07 Mar '23

07 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

reg. fedora name as trademark
by Sindhu S 14 Oct '15

14 Oct '15

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

4 3

Copr logo as an unregistered trademark of Red Hat
by Adam Samalik 26 Aug '15

26 Aug '15

Hello, the Copr Build Service [1] got a logo some time ago and I would like to protect it somehow. I'm thinking about making it an unregistered trademark (TM) and creating some usage guidelines. The main goal of the guidelines would be a way for people to promote our project. The guidelines would look similar to these: https://www.docker.com/brand-guidelines As the trademark needs to belong to someone, I would like to "give" the logo to Red Hat and state something like "this logo is a trademark of Red Hat". I haven't done anything like this before. What is the right way of achieving this? Thanks! Adam [1] https://copr.fedoraproject.org -- Adam Šamalík --------------------------- Associate Software Engineer Red Hat

1 0

ZPAQ
by Christopher Meng 25 Aug '15

25 Aug '15

Hi, I've been packaging ZPAQ[1] for years, and recently when I decide to push it to Fedora I found its license had been changed from GPLv3 to Public Domain, I'm not sure if it's acceptable for Fedora, since the code "includes code from libdivsufsort 2.0 (C) Yuta Mori, 2003-2008, MIT license, public domain code for AES from libtomcrypt by Tom St Denis and public domain code for salsa20 by D. J. Bernstein." Uh...Is it OK? Thanks. [1]---http://mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq.html [2]---https://github.com/zpaq/zpaq/blob/master/zpaq.cpp#L5 [3]---https://github.com/zpaq/zpaq/blob/master/readme.txt#L28 -- Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng http://awk.io

2 1

perl-Net-HL7's Beerware license variant
by Petr Šabata 19 Aug '15

19 Aug '15

Dear list, I'm reviewing perl-Net-HL7[0] and I'm unsure about its Beerware license. Although our guidelines generally classify Beerware as `free'[1], the drink is mandatory in this variant: BEER-WARE LICENSE Version 666, July 2012 You can use this stuff and do whatever you like with it on the following condition: 0. Would you ever be in a situation where you are able to offer us, or one of us, a beer, or if unavailable, an alcoholic beverage of your choice, you must do so. Wyldebeast & Wunderliebe Am I correct in assuming this license is non-free and unacceptable? Thank you, Petr [0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243506 [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Beerware

2 2

winetricks
by T.C. Hollingsworth 01 Aug '15

01 Aug '15

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

5 7

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal August 2015