legal September 2017

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 participants
8 discussions

Sleepycat license with SaaS restriction
by Florian Weimer 08 Jul '25

08 Jul '25

cryptlib is licensed under the Sleepycat license with a SaaS restriction: “Note that decoupling the software from the user, for example by running in a SaaS configuration, does not exempt you from these requirements.” (Full text attached.) This was not part of the original Sleepycat license, so a new license tag is required. Maybe this license is not even free; this additional clause seems to be a restriction on use. But perhaps it is not so different from the AGPL. Thanks, Florian

6 8

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

about openssl we may enable and build all elliptic curves on corp ?
by Sérgio Basto 05 Nov '22

05 Nov '22

Hello, I reopen or start thinking again on this question of enable elliptic curves of openssl [1] So going directly to the point, may I built all source of openssl in copr [2] ? or at least some other curves that fedora package don't ship? [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405843 [2] Version: 1.0.2k %global fips_version 2.0.14 I mean sources: http://ftp.o penssl.org/source/openssl-%{version}.tar.gz and http://ftp.openssl.org/s ource/openssl-fips-%{fips_version}.tar.gz Thanks , -- Sérgio M. B.

4 6

libdvdcss package in COPR
by Michal Novotny 10 Jan '18

10 Jan '18

Hello, is it alright to host libdvdcss package in COPR or should it be deleted? (more info here: https://www.videolan.org/legal.html) The licence is ok (GPL) and it's not listed here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items But I am not sure if it goes well with US regulations. See COPR specific regulations here: https://docs.pagure.org/copr.copr/user_documentation.html#what-i-can-build-… Thank you Michal Novotny

5 5

Pyramid and the Repoze license
by Randy Barlow 22 Sep '17

22 Sep '17

I learned today while asking for licensing clarification[0] on a package that Pyramid and some other Pylons project use the Repoze[1] license, which is not on Fedora's approved license list[2]. I became concerned, because many of these projects are already packaged for Fedora as noted in the clarification ticket. In fact, Bodhi uses Pyramid today, and it is incorrectly listed as a BSD license. Can we add Repoze to Fedora's approved license list? If not, what should we do about the existing packages? [0] https://github.com/Pylons/pylons-sphinx-themes/issues/8 [1] http://www.repoze.org/LICENSE.txt [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main

3 2

What's the current MPEG-1 layer 2 (mp2) encoding status?
by Peter Lemenkov 13 Sep '17

13 Sep '17

Hello All! Does anybody know if twolame (mp2 encoder) is OK for Fedora? * http://www.twolame.org * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1_Audio_Layer_II -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.

1 0

Fedora Export Compliance/Customs Information
by Tom Callaway 05 Sep '17

05 Sep '17

Please note: We have updated our Export Compliance/Customs Information. A copy of our updated statement can be found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Export If you have any questions about this statement, please send them to legal(a)fedoraproject.org. However, please keep in mind that Fedora, as part of Red Hat, is subject to the export and customs laws of the United States. Emails discussing loopholes, wording changes, or complaining about the inclusion or exclusion of specific countries or uses are likely to be ignored. Thanks, Tom Callaway Fedora Legal

1 0

Bison license exception
by Sandro Mani 01 Sep '17

01 Sep '17

Hi While reviewing mingw-cfitsio, we encountered the situation of bison parser sources [1][2] containing the following: /* [... standard GPLv3+ header ...] */ /* As a special exception, you may create a larger work that contains part or all of the Bison parser skeleton and distribute that work under terms of your choice, so long as that work isn't itself a parser generator using the skeleton or a modified version thereof as a parser skeleton. Alternatively, if you modify or redistribute the parser skeleton itself, you may (at your option) remove this special exception, which will cause the skeleton and the resulting Bison output files to be licensed under the GNU General Public License without this special exception. This special exception was added by the Free Software Foundation in version 2.2 of Bison. */ cfitsio is licensed MIT. Is my understanding correct that this special exception means that these files are also MIT licensed, being distributed as part of cfitsio, and hence that the license field of the package only needs to specify MIT? Thanks Sandro [1] https://github.com/healpy/cfitsio/blob/master/eval_y.c [2] https://github.com/healpy/cfitsio/blob/master/eval_tab.h

2 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal September 2017