legal November 2018

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

5 participants
7 discussions

Sleepycat license with SaaS restriction
by Florian Weimer 09 Jul '25

09 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 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

about openssl we may enable and build all elliptic curves on corp ?
by Sérgio Basto 06 Nov '22

06 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

Ubuntu font license
by Jason L Tibbitts III 27 Nov '18

27 Nov '18

It was recently claimed on the devel list that the Ubuntu font license is non-free, but it doesn't appear to be listed on our licensing page as either good or bad. The license can be viewed at: https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/font-licence and in plain text at https://assets.ubuntu.com/v1/81e5605d-ubuntu-font-licence-1.0.txt I'll paste the contents of the latter link below. I had a look and to my non-lawyer eyes it doesn't seem particularly problematic, but I guess at least at one point it was considered by Debian to be non-free (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-font-licence/+bug/769874) It has a forced renaming requirement for modified versions (section 2) which we've seen in the past and wasn't a problem, but in some cases it actually demands that the new name take a specific form, and I guess that's where the issue lies. In any case, I figure if nothing else it should be added to the appropriate place in our license list. - J< ------------------------------- UBUNTU FONT LICENCE Version 1.0 ------------------------------- PREAMBLE This licence allows the licensed fonts to be used, studied, modified and redistributed freely. The fonts, including any derivative works, can be bundled, embedded, and redistributed provided the terms of this licence are met. The fonts and derivatives, however, cannot be released under any other licence. The requirement for fonts to remain under this licence does not require any document created using the fonts or their derivatives to be published under this licence, as long as the primary purpose of the document is not to be a vehicle for the distribution of the fonts. DEFINITIONS "Font Software" refers to the set of files released by the Copyright Holder(s) under this licence and clearly marked as such. This may include source files, build scripts and documentation. "Original Version" refers to the collection of Font Software components as received under this licence. "Modified Version" refers to any derivative made by adding to, deleting, or substituting -- in part or in whole -- any of the components of the Original Version, by changing formats or by porting the Font Software to a new environment. "Copyright Holder(s)" refers to all individuals and companies who have a copyright ownership of the Font Software. "Substantially Changed" refers to Modified Versions which can be easily identified as dissimilar to the Font Software by users of the Font Software comparing the Original Version with the Modified Version. To "Propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification and with or without charging a redistribution fee), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well. PERMISSION & CONDITIONS This licence does not grant any rights under trademark law and all such rights are reserved. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of the Font Software, to propagate the Font Software, subject to the below conditions: 1) Each copy of the Font Software must contain the above copyright notice and this licence. These can be included either as stand-alone text files, human-readable headers or in the appropriate machine- readable metadata fields within text or binary files as long as those fields can be easily viewed by the user. 2) The font name complies with the following: (a) The Original Version must retain its name, unmodified. (b) Modified Versions which are Substantially Changed must be renamed to avoid use of the name of the Original Version or similar names entirely. (c) Modified Versions which are not Substantially Changed must be renamed to both (i) retain the name of the Original Version and (ii) add additional naming elements to distinguish the Modified Version from the Original Version. The name of such Modified Versions must be the name of the Original Version, with "derivative X" where X represents the name of the new work, appended to that name. 3) The name(s) of the Copyright Holder(s) and any contributor to the Font Software shall not be used to promote, endorse or advertise any Modified Version, except (i) as required by this licence, (ii) to acknowledge the contribution(s) of the Copyright Holder(s) or (iii) with their explicit written permission. 4) The Font Software, modified or unmodified, in part or in whole, must be distributed entirely under this licence, and must not be distributed under any other licence. The requirement for fonts to remain under this licence does not affect any document created using the Font Software, except any version of the Font Software extracted from a document created using the Font Software may only be distributed under this licence. TERMINATION This licence becomes null and void if any of the above conditions are not met. DISCLAIMER THE FONT SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT, PATENT, TRADEMARK, OR OTHER RIGHT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE FONT SOFTWARE OR FROM OTHER DEALINGS IN THE FONT SOFTWARE.

3 2

Fwd: CC-BY-SA-4.0
by Robert-André Mauchin 25 Nov '18

25 Nov '18

1 0

FDK-AAC license LGPL compatibility
by Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 10 Nov '18

10 Nov '18

According to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#fdk , the FDK-AAC license is GPL-incompatible. Is it LGPL-compatible, though? Can the table entry for FDK-AAC at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses be updated to mention its GPL-incompatibility explicitly? Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan

1 1

Universal Public License
by Salman Siddiqui 07 Nov '18

07 Nov '18

Hello, I would like to know if the Universal Public License (UPL) is appropriate for a Fedora package. The license is used by Java Mission Control, an upstream project that I am working on packaging. License: https://oss.oracle.com/licenses/upl/ Upstream project source code: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jmc/jmc/ Thanks, Salman

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal November 2018