legal June 2019

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

4 participants
5 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

Regarding GPL compatibility of fdk-aac
by Tom Callaway 11 Jun '19

11 Jun '19

The Fedora Project is aware that the Free Software Foundation has stated that the Fraunhofer FDK AAC license is GPL incompatible, specifically, because of Clause 3. We believe that the fdk-aac software codec implementation that we wish to include in Fedora is no longer encumbered by AAC patents. This fact means that Clause 3 in the FDK AAC license is a "no op", or to put it plainly, if no patents are in play, there are no patent licenses to disclaim. For this (and only this) specific implementation of fdk-aac, we believe that the FDK AAC license is GPL compatible. Thanks, Tom

1 0

Adding openhantek to fedora repo
by Vascom 04 Jun '19

04 Jun '19

Hi. It is my second attempt to add openhantek software to Fedora repo. First variant contain nonfree firmware and was added to rpmfusion nonfree. Now all nonfree firmware was removed by upstream and project use only GPL firmware. More information here https://github.com/OpenHantek/openhantek/issues/240#issuecomment-494361989 My Review Request https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713232 Please clarify may I add this to Fedora now or not. -- Best Regards, Vasiliy Glazov FAS: vascom

3 4

License mix of package "anki"
by Christian Krause 03 Jun '19

03 Jun '19

Hi, I'm currently in the process of updating the package anki to a new major release for which I need guidance regarding the mix of licensing. Originally I was setting the bug report for the new release ([1]) to block FE-Legal in order to get confirmation that my findings regarding the licenses are OK and acceptable for Fedora. Since I haven't received any feedback for a while, that was probably not the best way to reach the FE-Legal team and so I'll repeat my question here: --------------------------------------------------------------- The new major version of anki 2.1.x includes some new files with new licenses. Upstream has updated the LICENSE file(s) accordingly. IMHO this would result in the following License tag in the spec file: License: AGPLv3+ and GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and MIT and BSD and ASL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA and CC-BY Please can FE-Legal confirm, that this combination of licenses is OK? As reference, here are the relevant snippets of the two license files: 1. LICENSE [...] The following included source code items use a license other than AGPL3: * Anki's translations: BSD. * Qt's bundled translations: LGPL3. * The anki/template/ folder is based off pystache: MIT. * The SuperMemo importer: GPL3. * The Pauker importer: BSD-3. * mpv.py: MIT. * statsbg.py: CC BY-SA 3.0. * winpaths.py: MIT. * MathJax: Apache 2. * jQuery and jQuery-UI: MIT. * browsersel.js: CC BY 2.5. * plot.js: MIT. [...] 2. LICENSE.logo: [...] Anki's logo is copyright Alex Fraser, and is licensed under the AGPL3 like the [...] The official source of the tarball which includes the complete license files can be found here: https://apps.ankiweb.net/downloads/current/anki-2.1.12-source.tgz --------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you very much in advance! Best regards, Christian [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1612847

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal June 2019