legal July 2018

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

11 participants
9 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

Another permission notice variant
by Florian Weimer 19 Jul '18

19 Jul '18

I found this license in a test case: /* (C) Copyright C E Chew * * Feel free to copy, use and distribute this software provided: * * 1. you do not pretend that you wrote it * 2. you leave this copyright notice intact. */ What's the appropriate license tag for it? Thanks, Florian

3 3

NTP license question
by Severin Gehwolf 13 Jul '18

13 Jul '18

Hi, I'm reviewing OpenJDK and licensecheck pointed me at: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/cf09f0b56efd/src/jdk.crypto.cryptok… to be NTP. Is "NTP" this license? https://opensource.org/licenses/NTP If that's the case, why isn't it listed in the "Good Licenses" list here? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses What's the license of the above file? Thanks, Severin

5 10

Adding package with binary firmware to repo
by Vascom 11 Jul '18

11 Jul '18

Hi. I am want add to repo package openhantek https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558362 It is oscilloscopes GUI. This application contain binary firmware for some models of USB oscilloscopes. This firmware must be loaded to oscilloscope to work. As I understood it taken from proprietary windows driver. Can I add this package to Fedora repo? Or it need any additional actions from me?

3 4

Software whose only purpose is to breach web site terms of service
by Florian Weimer 04 Jul '18

04 Jul '18

Is it appropriate for Fedora to ship software whose only purpose is to violate terms of service of web sites, such as restrictions like this? “ You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means […] may designate. ” The software is specifically designed to circumvent restrictions the web site operator has put in place to prevent offline viewing of content. Thanks, Florian

4 7

License field in fribidi package
by Akira TAGOH 04 Jul '18

04 Jul '18

Hi, I've noticed that fribidi contains files copied from glibc (i.e. which is licensed under GPLv2+)[1] and this code is only used and linked to the binary program[2] and library is still clean. so the effective license should be GPLv2+ for binary and LGPLv2+ for library I think. My questions is, 1) how should I update License tag in the spec? currently it is "LGPLv2+ and UCD"[3] and 2) what's the better way to avoid misleading that applications/libraries linking against fribidi may affect GPLv2+ due to the license tag in fribidi? TIA, [1].. https://github.com/fribidi/fribidi/blob/master/bin/getopt.c [2].. https://github.com/fribidi/fribidi/blob/master/bin/Makefile.am [3].. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fribidi/blob/master/f/fribidi.spec -- Akira TAGOH

1 0

Inner Net License/radvd BSD variant: Still BSD?
by Florian Weimer 03 Jul '18

03 Jul '18

Does this license still qualify as a BSD variant? “ The author(s) grant permission for redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, of the software and documentation provided that the following conditions are met: 0. If you receive a version of the software that is specifically labelled as not being for redistribution (check the version message and/or README), you are not permitted to redistribute that version of the software in any way or form. 1. All terms of all other applicable copyrights and licenses must be followed. 2. Redistributions of source code must retain the authors' copyright notice(s), this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer. 3. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the authors' copyright notice(s), this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 4. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement with the name(s) of the authors as specified in the copyright notice(s) substituted where indicated: This product includes software developed by the authors which are mentioned at the start of the source files and other contributors. 5. Neither the name(s) of the author(s) nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY ITS AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. ” The Inner Net License drops condition 4. Thanks, Florian

2 3

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal July 2018