i started a package review request for "apt mirror" a apt sources mirroring tool.
I took the GPLv2 license tag from the debian package, because i found no informations about license in the source or on the homepage.
the first debianisation was with version 0.3.0 and the package author (the same as the upstream author) declare the license as gplv2. he is still the debian maintainer of this package and the license never changed.
copyright information from package 0.3.0:
This package was debianized by Dmitry N. Hramtsov <hdn(a)nsu.ru> on
Sat, 27 Jul 2002 12:44:33 +0700.
It was downloaded from http://apt-mirror.sourceforge.net/
Upstream Author(s): Dmitry N. Hramtsov <hdn(a)nsu.ru>
copyright information of 0.4.5 (current version)
what should i do?
Mit freundlichen Grüßen aus dem schönen Hainzell
I think this is relevant here.
"SGI has announced it is releasing a new version of the SGI Free
Software License B. The license, which now mirrors the free X11 license
used by X.Org, further opens previously released SGI graphics software,
including the SGI OpenGL Sample Implementation, the GLX API and other
One more Software Freedom Day well spent ;-)
I'm proud to announce a new minor player in the world of insignificant
clones of major, important Free and Open Source Linux Distributions,
*bling* Orange Sombrero - /based on Fedora/ *bling*
Orange Sombrero starts with releasing version number 9 - the same
version number as the upstream distribution, Fedora, to avoid confusion.
Has anything been changed?
Yeah, a patch to anaconda[1,2] that didn't make it in in time for the
Fedora 10 Beta freeze has been applied to compose this release -which is
sort of the entire use case behind the patch anyway. Also, a different
branch of Revisor has been used that uses the patch to anaconda.
Since I've got limited bandwidth and disk space, this is a 1 CD
distribution. If I had bandwidth and disk space, I might have thrown in
a mid-release Everything Spin but I couldn't. Also, given that this is a
1 CD distribution, I've added an install class to anaconda so that it
selects the correct groups of packages. Who needs "Office &
Productivity" if there's only @core and @base, right? "Base System" FTW!
It was fun, it took me 4 koji scratch builds of anaconda and another
number of composes to get it "right".
Note that despite these changes the installed system will behave just
the same as Fedora. In fact, if you look really hard, there's the
occasional "Fedora" in there, still -maybe that's because I used
fedora-release, which I should be able to do without trademark
violations, even though /etc/fedora-release still says "Fedora" ;-)
Trademark guidelines right now say a derivative distribution cannot use
"based on Fedora" -which is bad, and Orange Sombrero is now raising some
red flags about it. Work is well on it's way to improve that
situation though, for which I thank everyone involved. I hope soon,
very soon, derivative's of Fedora pop up everywhere, like mushrooms in
Where is it?
On behalf of the entire Orange Sombrero Community (e.g. ~1 person),
Jeroen van Meeuwen
Now I am trying to review bug 443238.
In the source tarball one JPG file is licensed under:
"Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 BR" (not 3.0):
Can I use "CC-BY" license tag for this license?
(this message may already have been posted, if it has, I apologize)
I wanted to propose a package for the teeworlds game, but the problem is
that the license may not be suitable for fedora.
In fact, problems are that it's a no-name license (so I don't know how
to name it in the spec file, but it's a detail), AND that it's really
Here it is :
A discussion about this license takes place in this page, here is a
- according to the main dev: in point 4, "as itself" means that it can
be sold (as a part of a distribution, or a magazine, or a software
compilation, but NOT ON ITS OWN)
- also according to the main dev: this license was discussed with a
fedora-legal person... ("This license was discussed in great length and
input were taken from some fedora legal guy (can't remember the name).")
(read the discussion for more details)
So, my question is: is this license Free (I think it is, but I wanted an
expert advice) and this software can be included in fedora ?
If not, what exactly make this license non-free ?
If yes, how should I name this license (for the package) ?
Since IcedTea/OpenJDK is part of Fedora 9, I presume that GPL +
Classpath Exception is a good licence, but I can't find it in the list here:
Senior Software Engineer
Engineering - Internationalisation
On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 07:55 +1000, Murray McAllister wrote:
> <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/CLA> states:
> '7. Should you wish to submit work that is not your original creation,
> you may submit it to the Project separately from any Contribution,
> identifying the complete details of its source and of any license or
> other restriction (including, but not limited to, related patents,
> trademarks, and license agreements) of which you are personally aware,
> and conspicuously marking the work as "Submitted on behalf of a
> third-party: [named here] ". '
> Does this apply to fedorahosted projects as well? Does this mean I can
> not use/copy+paste text from a public domain document (even if it is
> cited) if it is going to be stored on fedorahosted?
This probably belongs on fedora-legal-list; moving the discussion there.
Certainly there is nothing actually *barring* you from submitting a
public domain work, and the CLA is not intended to do that either. I
think the intent of this paragraph is to ensure contributors meet their
obligations when submitting work that has some sort of restrictive
license attached, and the contributor isn't also copyright holder.
We are working on a draft for a new and clearer CLA, so if nothing else
this is a point we should be addressing therein.
Paul W. Frields ("IANAL, TINLA, blah blah blah.")
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug