Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CAcert.org license
by Tom Callaway
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. :)
~spot
8 years, 2 months
winetricks
by T.C. Hollingsworth
winetricks [1] is free software, but I was originally under the
impression that it was ineligible for inclusion in Fedora because it
is used primarily to download and install non-free software. (That is
not it's only function, though--it also does some registry hacks and
can manage multiple WINEPREFIXes.)
However, some members of the community disagree [2] and say that it
might be eligible for Fedora, so we'd like confirmation one way or the
other.
Thanks!
-T.C.
[1] http://winetricks.org/
[2] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992#c40
8 years, 8 months
Linking of GPL-only and GPL-incompatible libraries
by Florian Weimer
What's Fedora's stance on linking GPL-only libraries into the same
process as a library which is considered GPL-incompatible (such as
4-clause BSD) if this linking happens rather indirectly?
We currently link psql against both libreadline and libcrypto/libssl
(OpenSSL), so if that is okay, more indirect linking should be
acceptable as well.
However, I'm not sure I'd appreciate that if I were a GPL-only library
author who chose that license deliberately (perhaps even with a desire
to sell alternative licensing), and some intermediate libraries makes my
work available under a more permissive license, only wrapped in a
different programming interface.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
9 years, 8 months
Source Requirements
by Dennis Gilmore
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
A couple of questions.
1) can we please stop making source isos? the source is available in
the source tree.
2) cloud WG wants to be able to produce updates images, what are our
requirements to ensuring source compliance with the GPL?
Today the sources for livecds and appliance images are only in the
source tree and not separated out. if we do updates images some sources
will be in the base source tree and some in updates, however the
updates sources will go away if the package gets another update. the
only single source where we could point people at is koji.
Dennis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)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=jifW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9 years, 11 months
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Copyright Submission Proposal
by Robyn Bergeron
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Brockmeier" <jzb(a)redhat.com>
> To: "marketing >> Fedora Marketing team" <marketing(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:42:03 AM
> Subject: Copyright Submission Proposal
>
> Hey all,
>
> To streamline this whole thing, can we just agree to publish all content
> on the magazine (and ask authors to agree) on a single Creative Commons
> license?
#1: Doesn't the FPCA provide for this anyway, in the absence of some standardized agreement? It seems like a lot of overhead in terms of keeping track of who has agreed to publish under those terms. It's either a new FAS group where people have agreed to a license, or revalidating existing fas groups, or... just checking as we already do to make sure people have signed the FPCA. (I assume that Magazine is hooked up to FAS in some fashion.)
>
> I would *personally* prefer the most restrictive of the CC licenses (CC
> BY-NC-ND 4.0):
>
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
#2: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is listed in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing as a license that isn't acceptable for Fedora. I realize you're citing 4.0 here, and we don't have guidance on 4.0 in the wiki, but I have to imagine it's not going to be much of a change. The NC part is still NC... as you said, it's the most restrictive, and at least in my opinion, restrictiveness isn't exactly freedom-enabling :)
Copied the legal list for love and guidance.
-Robyn
>
> But I'd accept most of the CC licenses.
>
> Thoughts, comments, flames?
>
> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst
> jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
> Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
> --
> marketing mailing list
> marketing(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
10 years, 1 month
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Copyright Submission Proposal
by Robyn Bergeron
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Miller" <mattdm(a)mattdm.org>
> To: "Ruth Suehle" <rsuehle(a)gmail.com>
> Cc: "Richard Fontana" <rfontana(a)redhat.com>, "Fedora Marketing team" <marketing(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>,
> legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 11:32:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Copyright Submission Proposal
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 02:29:39PM -0400, Ruth Suehle wrote:
> > "Copyright Fedora Magazine," which obviously needed to be fixed. But if
> > osdc has switched up to CC 4, maybe we should revisit for FM as well?
>
> I think it's worth at least looking at updating for Fedora content in
> general.
Agreed. TBH, I think if we're going to go that route, it should be in the context of the FPCA and our current list of "good licenses", and not just for the Magazine - trying to maintain separate lists of folks who have agreed to contribute under a license aside from signing the FPCA just feels like a lot of work for caring for special snowflakes, esp. when we don't have a mechanism currently in place to do so.
-r
>
> --
> Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
> --
> marketing mailing list
> marketing(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
10 years, 1 month
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Copyright Submission Proposal
by Robyn Bergeron
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Brockmeier" <jzb(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Robyn Bergeron" <rbergero(a)redhat.com>, "Fedora Marketing team" <marketing(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Cc: legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 11:01:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Copyright Submission Proposal
>
> On 03/26/2014 12:55 PM, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
> > #2: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is listed in
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing as a license that isn't
> > acceptable for Fedora. I realize you're citing 4.0 here, and we don't
> > have guidance on 4.0 in the wiki, but I have to imagine it's not going
> > to be much of a change. The NC part is still NC... as you said, it's the
> > most restrictive, and at least in my opinion, restrictiveness isn't
> > exactly freedom-enabling :)
>
> Yeah, my bad.
>
> I have my reasons for preferring the NC, myself, but as I said - I'll go
> along with whatever the project/group prefer.
>
> My main point is we should have one CC license content is published
> under, and authors should know and agree to that when they put stuff on
> the magazine.
>
> As for the magazine being hooked up to FAS - have we been checking that
> all submissions come from people who've signed the FPCA? It's not
> automated.
I guess the question I'm asking (to be more clear): If I get access to publish something to the Magazine, how is that access granted? Am I added to a FAS group, which in turn provides permissions for access? Or is the addition to the magazine author/editor list done manually?
>
> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst
> jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
> Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
>
10 years, 1 month
