legal September 2020

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

12 participants
8 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

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

The right license for logos and trademarks in a free software project
by Sheogorath 28 Sep '20

28 Sep '20

Hello, first of, this might not be the right mailing list, so feel free to redirect me or answer directly instead of to the list. I came to you, to ask about the right way to license a logo and Name properly as part of a free software project. We, the Project Hedgedoc[1] (formally known as CodiMD), are currently working on rebranding the whole thing to solve some name conflicts. As part of this we just created a new logo, came up with the name, etc. and we were wondering what's the right license for those works. GNU and the free software foundation, as well as OSI have guides for Source code, documentation and alike, but I couldn't find any resources on things like Logos and Names. I know Fedora and the Fedora logo is owned by RedHat, and I'm quite sure for other project exist similar constructs, but I'm not really aware how this is set up. Any recommendations or guidance is very welcome and I would love to hear back from you. [1]: https://github.com/codimd/server -- Signed Sheogorath PS: Yes, this is not closely Fedora related, but I really didn't come up with a better place to ask. OpenPGP: https://shivering-isles.com/openpgp/0xFCB98C2A3EC6F601.txt

3 2

How to name the license in the spec
by Jaroslav Skarvada 21 Sep '20

21 Sep '20

Hi, the code contains the following text: * <db(a)FreeBSD.ORG> wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you * can do whatever you want with this code, except you may not * license it under any form of the GPL. * A postcard or QSL card showing me you appreciate * this code would be nice. Diane Bruce va3db How to name such license in the spec? thanks & regards Jaroslav

6 13

HaXml LGPLv2 exceptions
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen 21 Sep '20

21 Sep '20

Hi Fedora Legal list, I am trying to package HaXml <https://hackage.haskell.org/package/HaXml> for Fedora. Its library is distributed with the LGPL 2.1 license, with an exception in a COPYRIGHT file: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/HaXml-1.25.5/src/COPYRIGHT """ As a relaxation of clause 6 of the LGPL, the copyright holders of this library give permission to use, copy, link, modify, and distribute, binary-only object-code versions of an executable linked with the original unmodified Library, without requiring the supply of any mechanism to modify or replace the Library and relink (clauses 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e), provided that all the other terms of clause 6 are complied with. """ It also includes some tools which are distributed with the GPL 2 license. So I'd like to ask for approval for the above exception to make it "LGPLv2 with exceptions". Not sure if that prevents "LGPLv2+ with exceptions"? Thank you, Jens

2 2

Lua Logo license text (restricted modifications)
by Miro Hrončok 08 Sep '20

08 Sep '20

Hello. I try to package a software that shows the Lua logo in it. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834280 The logo's license is: Copyright © 1998 Lua.org. Graphic design by Alexandre Nakonechnyj. Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without license or royalty fees, to use, copy, and distribute this logo for any purpose, including commercial applications, subject to the following conditions: - The origin of this logo must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you drew the original logo. - The only modification you can make is to adapt the orbiting text to your product name. - The logo can be used in any scale as long as the relative proportions of its elements are maintained. ---end--- Clearly, this does not allow modifications, but do we have some exceptions for branding? Or do I need to strip the logo out of the package? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

11 28

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal September 2020