legal October 2020

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

6 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

ASL 2.0 with exceptions
by Zdenek Dohnal 24 Nov '20

24 Nov '20

Hi all, I'm trying to package lprint https://github.com/michaelrsweet/lprint which has Apache Software License 2.0 with exceptions for GPLv2 and LGPLv2. CUPS has a similar license and it was marked as fine for Fedora in this thread [1] . Unfortunately, there isn't a valid short name for 'ASL 2.0 with exceptions' at [2] - would it be possible to add the short name into the table or should I just use simple 'ASL 2.0'? Thank you in advance and have a nice day, Zdenek [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org… [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses -- Zdenek Dohnal Software Engineer Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C

8 17

JPL NAIF/Spice toolkit license
by Mattia Verga 30 Oct '20

30 Oct '20

The libpasastro package is going to bundle the NAIF/Spice toolkit from Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The source code seems to be publicly available, no license file is included with the code, but in the headers there's this license text: THIS SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS WERE CREATED BY THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (CALTECH) UNDER A U.S. GOVERNMENT CONTRACT WITH THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA). THE SOFTWARE IS TECHNOLOGY AND SOFTWARE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE UNDER U.S. EXPORT LAWS AND IS PROVIDED "AS-IS" TO THE RECIPIENT WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTIES OF PERFORMANCE OR MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE (AS SET FORTH IN UNITED STATES UCC SECTIONS 2312-2313) OR FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER, FOR THE SOFTWARE AND RELATED MATERIALS, HOWEVER USED. IN NO EVENT SHALL CALTECH, ITS JET PROPULSION LABORATORY, OR NASA BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES AND/OR COSTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR INJURY TO PROPERTY AND LOST PROFITS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER CALTECH, JPL, OR NASA BE ADVISED, HAVE REASON TO KNOW, OR, IN FACT, SHALL KNOW OF THE POSSIBILITY. RECIPIENT BEARS ALL RISK RELATING TO QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS, AND AGREES TO INDEMNIFY CALTECH AND NASA FOR ALL THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS RESULTING FROM THE ACTIONS OF RECIPIENT IN THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE. Is this license acceptable for inclusion in Fedora? I have a doubt about the part "PUBLICLY AVAILABLE UNDER U.S. EXPORT LAWS"...

3 4

Redistributable license for Copr
by Miroslav Suchý 22 Oct '20

22 Oct '20

I have a wish. I am an product owner of Copr service. Currently, you can build in Copr only packages with the same good licenses as you can do in Fedora. However, in Copr we do not need to be as strict as Fedora. Fedora does not allow license which are ok to redistribute, but you cannot modify it. Do we have some example of license which is: * forbidden in Fedora, * the only reason for that is that it does not allow modification? Can we have at least one such license allowed for Copr? -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys

4 6

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal October 2020