legal May 2018

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

11 participants
8 discussions

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

Licences not listed on the Licensing wiki page
by Artur Iwicki 22 May '18

22 May '18

Hello. Recently I've downloaded the primary.xml for F28 and ran a check comparing the licences of packages in the repo against good licences listed on the Licensing wiki page. There are a couple licences that are used by a few packages, but I couldn't find them on the wiki page. It might be good to review these licences and add them to the wiki page, or ask maintainers to change the package License: tags in case the licence is already listed, but under a different identifier. - Array (used by gcin) - BSL-1.0 (used by ceph, librados2 and others) - Freely redistributable without restriction (used by alienarena-data, beneath-a-steel-sky and others) - PDDL-1.0 (used by python-nibabel) There's also some packages with typos in their licence strings; I've submitted bug reports for those packages. A.I.

4 3

22 May '18

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 As part of Fedora’s commitment to addressing the EU General Data Privacy Regulation (GDPR), among other reasons, the Fedora privacy statement has been revised. The new statement has been reviewed with Fedora Legal and approved by the Fedora Council. You should read the statement fully, but the key updates include: * Clearer descriptions of how Fedora uses your personal data to provide services; * Information about the GDPR; * Additional detail on how your personal data may be shared to serve the public interest and that of the open source community; and * More focus on how you can review, modify, and update your personal data. You can find the new statement at the standard wiki location: <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:PrivacyPolicy> Many of Fedora’s applications have been updated to include links to the privacy policy or other information that helps you understand the terms of use for these systems. If you see a system where this is not clear, please let us know by filing a new issue in the Fedora infrastructure ticket queue: <https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure> The new privacy statement takes effect on Friday, May 25, 2018. By using Fedora services on or after that date, you are agreeing to these updates. - -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFbBDs/rNvJN70RNxcRAiK9AKC0jRkC+1kCRFGwUVq+RMNgPaFRbACg9j3I ibP6joxxevwSerjeoSRh4iE= =G0wQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

question about wxWindows Library Licence
by Gary Gatling 22 May '18

22 May '18

Hello. I am working on an update of VirtualGL package for fedora and EPEL for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1566666 The version currently in fedora is using wxWidgets license. The author has changed the license to "wxWindows Library License v3.1" I do not see this license in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses Here is what I find with a google search: https://opensource.org/licenses/WXwindows Is it permitted to upgrade this package with the new license? If so, should I send email to devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org informing of license change? Thanks a lot.

2 1

NIST license
by Susi Lehtola 21 May '18

21 May '18

Hi, I just ran into some software developed at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that might be suitable for inclusion in Fedora by itself or as part of some other package. The license NIST uses is [1]: This software was developed by employees of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the Federal Government and is being made available as a public service. Pursuant to title 17 United States Code Section 105, works of NIST employees are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. This software may be subject to foreign copyright. Permission in the United States and in foreign countries, to the extent that NIST may hold copyright, to use, copy, modify, create derivative works, and distribute this software and its documentation without fee is hereby granted on a non-exclusive basis, provided that this notice and disclaimer of warranty appears in all copies. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED 'AS IS' WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTY THAT THE SOFTWARE WILL CONFORM TO SPECIFICATIONS, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND FREEDOM FROM INFRINGEMENT, AND ANY WARRANTY THAT THE DOCUMENTATION WILL CONFORM TO THE SOFTWARE, OR ANY WARRANTY THAT THE SOFTWARE WILL BE ERROR FREE. IN NO EVENT SHALL NIST BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ARISING OUT OF, RESULTING FROM, OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THIS SOFTWARE, WHETHER OR NOT BASED UPON WARRANTY, CONTRACT, TORT, OR OTHERWISE, WHETHER OR NOT INJURY WAS SUSTAINED BY PERSONS OR PROPERTY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER OR NOT LOSS WAS SUSTAINED FROM, OR AROSE OUT OF THE RESULTS OF, OR USE OF, THE SOFTWARE OR SERVICES PROVIDED HEREUNDER. Is this a) free, b) GPL compatible? [1] https://www.nist.gov/director/copyright-fair-use-and-licensing-statements-s… -- Susi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org

2 1

libmml LGPLv2 with exception license
by Antonio Trande 09 May '18

09 May '18

Hello everyone. I proposed libmml package [1] for reviewing but this software is released with a 'LGPLv2 with exception' license (attached). I need your approval for that. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575412 Regards. -- --- Antonio Trande Fedora Project mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org' GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/

1 0

Don't Be a Dick Public License
by Jason L Tibbitts III 03 May '18

03 May '18

I stumbled across a piece of code under the "Don't Be a Dick Public License", which has a convenient web site: http://www.dbad-license.org/ Yeah, it's another "semi-joke" license. Supposed to be funny, but confusing and contradictory. The license text is as follows: ===== # DON'T BE A DICK PUBLIC LICENSE > Version 1.1, December 2016 > Copyright (C) [year] [fullname] Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document. > DON'T BE A DICK PUBLIC LICENSE > TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 1. Do whatever you like with the original work, just don't be a dick. Being a dick includes - but is not limited to - the following instances: 1a. Outright copyright infringement - Don't just copy this and change the name. 1b. Selling the unmodified original with no work done what-so-ever, that's REALLY being a dick. 1c. Modifying the original work to contain hidden harmful content. That would make you a PROPER dick. 2. If you become rich through modifications, related works/services, or supporting the original work, share the love. Only a dick would make loads off this work and not buy the original work's creator(s) a pint. 3. Code is provided with no warranty. Using somebody else's code and bitching when it goes wrong makes you a DONKEY dick. Fix the problem yourself. A non-dick would submit the fix back. ==== I can't tell if this is non-free or not. Certainly the restrictions on sales of unmodified work and the restriction on certain types of modifications would be problematic, but then I can't tell if the "just don't be a dick" part is a request or a requirement (which then contradicts the "do whatever you like" portion). So, is this another one for the "Bad Licenses" section? - J<

4 3

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal May 2018