Now I am trying to review rsssserver (bug 450409).
First I checked the license issue of this package, then I found some of the codes
are licensed under the below:
Copyright (C) 1999, 2002 NVIDIA Corporation
This file is provided without support, instruction, or implied warranty of any
kind. NVIDIA makes no guarantee of its fitness for a particular purpose and is
not liable under any circumstances for any damages or loss whatsoever arising
from the use or inability to use this file or items derived from it.
Is this license allowed for Fedora? (if so, is this GPLv2 compatible?)
can you give me "Fedora acceptability statement" for the Open CASCADE
Technology Public License available at
PS: first copy of this mail is moderator's queue since Friday
Fedora and Red Hat package maintainer
I am looking at developing an application based on FEDORA - which will run from a bootable USB under FEDORA.
The application will probably be written in in C or C++ (gcc) and use gtk libraries or use TCL/TK .
I then want to distribute the application with a PC commercially ie to sell multiple PCs all with FEDORA on them and all of them running my application.
I do not want to contravene any licensing restrictions - but quite honestly the licensing constraints for FEDORA are beyond my mental capabilities.
If a license is needed for every machine sold what will the license cost ?
My understanding to Fedora's CLA is that you are not assigning the full
to Redhat, rather, you ONLY allow them to "to reproduce, prepare derivative
works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute
Contribution and such derivative works; ..."
In another word, if you define your software license as GPLv2, Redhat
create derivative work from your software, therefore, they can only be
GPLv2. Redhat can not own the full copyright and revoke your original
license of your software.
The only word I am not clear is "sublicense", although it does not sound
like "re-license" or "dual-license".
I CCed Fedora legal mailing list, and hope someone can provide a more
definite answer to your concerns.
Paul Hardy wrote:
> I signed up for a Fedora account to submit my work. I then found that
> I had to sign a CLA (Contributor License Agreement) before my work
> could be submitted to the Fedora project. The CLA requires you to
> assign a non-exclusive copyright to Red Hat. If Red Hat has a
> copyright to my work, they can circumvent the GPL. For example, they
> can make proprietary changes to anything I send them, then have
> exclusive rights to change their modified work for profit, denying me
> and anyone else access to their proprietary changes.
> I therefore do not want to sign the CLA, so I am not going to put
> unifont into Fedora myself.
> However, please feel free to enter unifont into Fedora if you want.
> That way you're entering my work without my signing away a copyright
> (thereby giving Red Hat the power to circumvent the GPL).
> If you don't want to put unifont into Fedora yourself, I'll let other
> people in Fedora who emailed me about this know so one of them can if
> they want. I had already told a few (with you CCed on the email) that
> I would be bringing the font into Fedora.
> Let me know what you want to do one way or another: either put unifont
> into Fedora yourself, or let me know you aren't going to do it so I
> can email the other people who asked about getting the font into
> There was questions raised on licensing at
> Perhaps you can talk to Spot (cc'ed) and get it clarified?
I've included below the correspondence between VPRI and Debian in
regard the license question.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kim Rose <kim.rose(a)vpri.org>
Date: Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:26 AM
Subject: Fwd: Squeak images/relicensing
To: Walter Bender <walter.bender(a)gmail.com>
Cc: Bert Freudenberg <bert(a)freudenbergs.de>
Hi, Walter -
Here is a copy of my message to Jose.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Kim Rose <kim.rose(a)vpri.org>
> Date: April 4, 2008 9:18:11 AM PDT
> To: José L. Redrejo Rodríguez <jredrejo(a)edu.juntaextremadura.net>
> Cc: Bert Freudenberg <bert(a)freudenbergs.de>, Yoshiki Ohshima <yoshiki(a)vpri.org>, Craig Latta <craig(a)netjam.org>, Kim Rose <kim(a)vpri.org>
> Subject: Squeak images/relicensing
> Hi, Jose -
> I hope you and your family are all doing well.
> I have seen the recent exchange of email between you and others regarding the relicensing effort of Squeak to the MIT License. I can see you are mostly up to date with what is going on. However, as Bert has requested I wanted to write to you directly and confirm Bert's most recent responses.
>> Can you confirm me that the code that has not been relicensed has been
>> removed from the olpc image?
> No. But VPRI as the original authors take responsibility for the earlier contributions made under the Squeak License. VPRI made every justifiable effort to contact the contributors. Not a single contributor was against relicensing, so it is safe to assume that even those that could not be reached would be happy to see their code continue to be used. They submitted it for official inclusion in Squeak, after all. So who would argue that, if not the contributors themselves?
> As Bert says VPRI spearheaded an effort to contact *every* contributor to the Squeak code base. We did not receive a single negative response and have a notebook with 100s of signed re-licensing agreements. We also put out several "speak now or forever hold your peace" group emails indicating the relicensing was taking effect and should anyone object to relicensing their code to let us know.
> Our attitude is the code IS now relicensed under the MIT license. Should, a contributor, at any time, write to VPRI and request their code be taken out of the code base, we would comply.
> Please do not let this interfere with or hold up your efforts.
> Thanks again and best regards,
Walter Bender wrote:
> I'm Walter Bender, one of the founders of Sugar Labs
> (http://sugarlabs.org). I'm excited that there Fedora community is
> rallying around OLPC and consequently Sugar.
> My question is in regards to packaging Squeak/Etoys for Fedora.
> believe that there has been an open ticket regarding this for quite
> some time (it is on the Package Maintainers Wishlist under OLPC, but
> would be of more general applicability as well). Any advice as to how
> to move things forward?
There was questions raised on licensing at
Perhaps you can talk to Spot (cc'ed) and get it clarified?
We have a NPO  in the 'ambassadors' group. According to the CLA
there is no problem that the contributor is a legal entity. And inside
FAmSCo we didn't see any obstacles when an "ambassadors" consist of many
I just want to make sure that we aren't running into legal problems in
the future because we don't know if the person who sign the CLA in the
name of the NPO or NGO is authorized to do that. For instance, Fedora
EMEA e. V. have a point in the statutes that administer the signing power.
Fingerprint: 2F6C 930F D3C4 7E38 6AFA 4EB4 E23C D2DD 36A4 397F
Fedora always leads and never follows.
Greetings, was wondering if this license is suitable for inclusion in
Fedora and if so, what I should state it's license as in the spec
Thrift Software License
Copyright (c) 2006- Facebook, Inc.
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization
obtaining a copy of the software and accompanying documentation covered by
this license (the "Software") to use, reproduce, display, distribute,
execute, and transmit the Software, and to prepare derivative works of the
Software, and to permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to
do so, all subject to the following:
The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement, including
the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer,
must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and
all derivative works of the Software, unless such copies or derivative
works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by
a source language processor.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT
SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE
FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER
DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Devan Goodwin <dgoodwin(a)dangerouslyinc.com>