On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 23:03 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote: > > >>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway <Tom> writes: > > > > TC> Given that it does not give permission for us to redistribute (the > > TC> cornerstone requirement for Content licenses), this license is not > > TC> acceptable for Fedora. > > > > I guess I'm glad I looked before approving the package, but I have to > > wonder: Do the cacert folks actually want anyone to use their > > certificates? I mean, this prevents basically everyone from using > > them, because they can't come with the OS or the browser. > > Personally, the more I read the document, the more I'm confused. > > "You may NOT distribute certificates or root keys under this > licence"... does this mean we can distribute under a different license? Well, sortof. The wording here is strange because you can get a different license from the CA issuer. We can't just pick a license, but the CA issuer might be willing to give us a different one. > Would it be worth getting in contact with CAcert.org in order to try > and have them allow us to redistribute the root certs under conditions > which are acceptable to the Fedora Project? Probably, yes. :)

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 10:20 +0100, Ciaran Farrell wrote: > I think it would make sense to coordinate our efforts here - openSUSE > and > Fedora want to distribute the CaCert.org root certs and we are both > unhappy > with the current terms of distribution. So, given that Fedora has two classes of licensing (Code and Content) and that these CaCert.org root certs would safely fall into the Content category, we really only need permission to copy and redistribute the root certs without restriction. We don't need the right to modify them. I'm not sure how their private keys come into this, are they distributing them for some odd reason?

> @spot - if you like, I'll forward you our correspondence with the > cacert > people thus far. Sure, thanks! ~spot