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
3 weeks, 5 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
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
Copr logo as an unregistered trademark of Red Hat
by Adam Samalik
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
7 years, 7 months
perl-Net-HL7's Beerware license variant
by Petr Šabata
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
7 years, 7 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
7 years, 8 months
