legal September 2018

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

5 participants
7 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

4 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

Higan in Copr
by Randy Barlow 01 Oct '18

01 Oct '18

Greetings! I noticed today that Higan[0] has been added to Copr. It's a game system emulator, and it includes some binary ROM files (for example, [4]) that I have been unable to determine the license for. I have attempted to contact the author to ask where these files came from and what their license is, but did not get a reply. The Higan website claims that these files are not subject to copyright law[5], but IANAL and am not familiar with any exceptions to Copyright law that would be unique to system ROM images, so I figured I would ask the legal list. Is Higan acceptable to be distributed by Fedora given these system ROM files that it includes? [0] https://byuu.org/emulation/higan/ [1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/brollylssj/higan/ [2] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/raznikk [3] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/meeuw/higan/ [4] https://gitlab.com/higan/higan/tree/master/higan/systems/Super%20Famicom.sys [5] https://byuu.org/emulation/higan/firmware

2 1

The software freedom conservancy has tendered its response
by viewedforward＠aaathats3as.com 27 Sep '18

27 Sep '18

The software freedom conservancy has tendered its response: http://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/ http://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4 "" "The GPLv2 have several provisions that, when taken together, can be construed as an irrevocable license from each contributor. " "" It cites: " That license granted to downstream is irrevocable, again provided that the downstream user complies with the license terms: "[P]arties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance" (GPLv2§4). " However this is disingenuous The full text of section 4 is as follows: "" 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. "" The "You" in section 4 is speaking of the licensee regarding sub-licensees, it is not speaking to the licensor/copyright-holder. IE: if the licensee loses his license, through operation of the automatic-revocation provisions, the sub-licensees do not also lose their licenses. IE: The language is disclaiming a chain topography for license distribution, and instead substituting a hub-and-spoke topography (all licenses originating from the copyright holder, not the previous-in-line) GPLv3 added a no-rescission clause for a reason: the reason being to attempt to create an estoppel defense for the licensees against the licensor. You will notice that Eben Moglen never speaks on these issues. (He preumably is aware of the weaknesses vis a vis the US copyright regime.) Section 6 further clarifies the hub-and-spoke model: "" 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. "" The memorandum posted then goes on to a discussion of estoppel, detrimental reliance, etc; noting that users may have relied on the software and their licenses may be estopped from being revoked from said users since doing so might cause them unanticipated loss. This is speaking of already published, existent, versions of the program used by end users. The memorandum seems to ignore what happens to "upstream" once said project receives a revocation notice. Thought it may be possible that users of a published piece of software may have defenses to license revocation, the same is not true regarding the rescinded property vis-a-vis future prospective versions of the software nor of future prospective licensees of said software. That is: once the grant to use the code in question is rescinded, future versions of the software may not use that code. Current users of the software may be-able to raise an estoppel / detrimental reliance defense regarding the current published software, however the programmers working on the next version of said software cannot continue to use the property in future versions of the software (such would be a copyright violation once the gratuitous license is rescinded by the grantor). Additionally, prospective-licensees, once the grant was rescinded and such was published, would have no same-such estoppel defense (not being user-licensees at the time of revocation). (Ignoring this eventuality in the published memorandum, is, of-course, by design.) (Now, to note: the free-software movement is focused on the freedom of the user, not the progenitors of the software, so one could certainly say that ignoring some developer-focused analysis is consistent with their prerogative...)

1 0

SoftFloat-COPYING is legal ?
by Sérgio Basto 26 Sep '18

26 Sep '18

Hello opencv-3.4.2+ have this core module 3rdparty [1], may I include it in Fedora ? Thanks [1] https://github.com/opencv/opencv/blob/master/modules/core/3rdparty/Soft Float/COPYING.txt -- Sérgio M. B.

2 2

questions about licensing for GZDoom and Quakespasm?
by Victor Hugo Aguiar Pacce 08 Sep '18

08 Sep '18

Hi, I'd like to get some clarification on whether GZDoom[1]'s usage of the "Paul Hsieh derivative license" prevents it from being packaged and whether Quakespasm[2] is cleared for packaging. [1] https://zdoom.org/wiki/license [2] http://svn.code.sf.net/p/quakespasm/code/trunk/quakespasm/Quakespasm.html

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal September 2018