legal November 2009

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

23 participants
19 discussions

license for plpa
by Steve Traylen 16 Nov '09

16 Nov '09

Hi, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530230 has been blocked on FE-Legal for sometime. It looks "fine" bsd'ish but has a lot of extra text. In fact as mentioned in the review this code is already in Fedora as a private library elsewhere but that can be followed up after a yes or no on plpa in its own right, Thanks Steve -- Steve Traylen

2 1

ChemDoodle Web Components license
by Gianluca Sforna 16 Nov '09

16 Nov '09

Hi, I'm having a look at packaging ChemDoodle Web Components, a Javascript set of classes to manage chemical structures in web pages. Now, the license is GPLv3+ but they have an additional exception detailed in: http://web.chemdoodle.com/installation.php#license """ As a special exception to the GPL, any HTML file which merely makes function calls to this code, and for that purpose includes it by reference, shall be deemed a separate work for copyright law purposes. If you modify this code, you may extend this exception to your version of the code, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. This means that your websites do NOT need to be released under GPL even if you call the ChemDoodle Web Components library. """ Now the questions: 1. Isn't that exception just redundant? I can't really see how an HTML could ever be considered a derivative work of some javascript code 2. in case it is really relevant, what should be put in the License filed of the spec file? TIA G. -- Gianluca Sforna http://morefedora.blogspot.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/gianlucasforna

2 1

SystemC OSCI License and Fedora is an Non-Profit org
by Chitlesh GOORAH 16 Nov '09

16 Nov '09

Hello there, I bring this SystemC's legal discussion alive again as I believe it would be a very big asset for FEL. SystemC was refused to under fedora collection due to a licensing issue. Tom Callaway went to talk with OSCI's lawyer with some recommendations, but in vain. I'm in discussions with the OSCI board as well to seek a tradeoff. However OSCI board tells me it is on the trademark item that Tom and OSCI board failed to find a tradeoff. But isn't Fedora logos and trademarks suffers the same issue ? Perhaps also Firefox/Mozilla. I'm reading Tom Callaway's recommendations on the change needed in the licence. I think Fedora is NOT a Commercial Distributor and is NOT dealing a commercial offering. So as a non-profit organization we/fedora don't require the need for a chance in license, right ? Kind regards, Chitlesh Goorah Tom Callaway's recommendations: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is specifically commenting on the current version 3.0 of the SystemC license. http://www.systemc.org/about/org_docs/license/ The most significant problem is section 2.7, concerning trademarks. I would suggest both of the following: (a) Eliminating 2.7 in its entirety. Trademark issues are dealt with adequately in section 2.5. However, another (redundant) possibility is to replace the existing 2.7 in its entirety with one sentence: This Agreement grants no permission to use the marks or logos of OSCI. (b) Sever Exhibit D completely from the license. There are other issues that might not rise to the level of non-free-ness but have been pointed out by the FSF as being problematic (and in some cases clarification of meaning or purpose would lead to the conclusion that the clauses in question make the license non-free). The following suggestions would address these: (a) Eliminate the following: PLEASE READ THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE CLICKING ON THE "ACCEPT" BUTTON, AS BY CLICKING ON THE "ACCEPT" BUTTON YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ, UNDERSTOOD AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT AND ALL OF ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. (Note that there's other language that deals with acceptance below this language.) (b) In section 2.6, replace the term "proprietary notices" with "legal notices". (c) Replace section 5 with the following: Any Recipient which Distributes any Contribution and/or OSCI Release in a commercial offering (a "Commercial Distributor") may accept certain responsibilities with respect to end users, business partners and the like. While this license is intended to facilitate the commercial use of Contributions and OSCI Releases, a Commercial Distributor should do so in a manner which does not create potential liability for the Contributors. Therefore, each Commercial Distributor hereby agrees to defend and indemnify every Contributor ("Indemnified Contributor") against any losses, damages and costs (collectively "Losses") arising from claims, lawsuits and other legal actions brought by a third party against the Indemnified Contributor to the extent they directly result from the acts or omissions of such Commercial Distributor in connection with the terms and conditions under which the Commercial Distributor offered such Contributions and OSCI releases in a commercial product offering. The obligations in this Section 5 do not apply to any claims or Losses relating to any actual or alleged intellectual property infringement. In order to qualify, an Indemnified Contributor must: a) promptly notify the Commercial Distributor in writing of such claim, and b) allow the Commercial Distributor to control, and cooperate with the Commercial Distributor in, the defense and any related settlement negotiations. The Indemnified Contributor may participate in the defense of any such claim at its own expense. For example, a Recipient might include a Contribution in a commercial product offering, Product X. That Contributor is then a Commercial Distributor. If that Commercial Distributor then makes performance claims, or offers warranties, support or indemnity related to Product X, those performance claims, offers and other terms are such Commercial Distributor's responsibility alone. Under this Section 5, the Commercial Distributor would have to defend claims against the Contributors directly arising out of those performance claims, offers, and other terms, and if a court requires any Contributor to pay any damages as a result, the Commercial Distributor must pay those damages. Alternatively, and preferably, eliminate section 5 altogether. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kind regards, Chitlesh

3 2

Does the AGPL impose packaging requirements?
by Jason L Tibbitts III 08 Nov '09

08 Nov '09

Does Fedora as a distro need to package AGPL (v3, if it matters) software in any specific way to meet the requirements of the license? Or do we simply provide a package (and src.rpm) and leave it up to the person installing the software to make sure they comply? - J<

2 1

RE: [SPAM] Fedora-legal-list Digest, Vol 29, Issue 3
by threethirty 08 Nov '09

08 Nov '09

2 1

Combining copyrights on Erlang source files
by Jason L Tibbitts III 07 Nov '09

07 Nov '09

A question occurred to me after doing a review recently about whether Erlang source is compiled and linked together like C source or whether the source files remain separate like, say, Python. The issue is an Erlang package where some source files are LGPLv3+ but one is GPLv2+. I took the safe route and assumed that the final result is GPLv3+, but unfortunately I don't quite know enough about either Erlang or the actual legal threshold at which the sources are considered to be commingled. When I look at the compiled application, it looks as if each of the .erl files gets turned into a .beam file, and those files look to be kept separate in the final package. The ticket, with a package you can build, is at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502991 - J<

2 1

Hopefully simple GPL licensing question re Netomata
by David Nalley 03 Nov '09

03 Nov '09

So I started looking at packaging Netomata ( http://www.netomata.com/products/ncg ) and came across something that raises a flag. The author is also at a conference with me this week, so I figured the face time would be a good time to request a change if something is required. The question I have, is does the 'All Rights Reserved' in each source file conflict with the GPLv3 that they claim the package is released under, and is it a problem wrt Packaging Guidelines. In the header of each source file appears: # $Id: ncg 335 2009-04-13 22:40:31Z brent $ # Copyright (C) 2008, 2009 Netomata, Inc. All Rights Reserved. # Please review accompanying 'LICENSE' file or # http://www.netomata.com/docs/licenses/ncg for important notices, # disclaimers, and license terms. There is no mention of GPLv$ in the source itself. LICENSE contains: Netomata Config Generator (NCG) License ======================================= Copyright (C) 2008, 2009 Netomata, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Netomata Config Generator (NCG) is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 3, as published by the Free Software Foundation. Netomata Config Generator (NCG) is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND (without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE), either express or implied, unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing. See the GNU General Public License, version 3, for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License, version 3, along with Netomata Config Generator (NCG), in the file named "COPYING". If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt>. For any other questions or comments, please contact us at: Netomata, Inc. 2601C Blanding Ave., #327 Alameda, CA 94501 USA Web http://www.netomata.com/ Phone +1 510 355 0123 Fax +1 510 355 0134 Email license(a)netomata.com and of course 'COPYING' is contained in source and has GPLv3 in it.

2 1

XSkat license
by Christian Krause 03 Nov '09

03 Nov '09

Hi, I'd like to package the card game "xskat": ( http://www.xskat.de/xskat.html ) which is distributed under the following license: ------------------------------------------------------------- This program is free software; you can redistribute it freely. Use it at your own risk; there is NO WARRANTY. Redistribution of modified versions is permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. All copyright & permission notices are preserved. 2.a) Only changes required for packaging or porting are made. or 2.b) It is clearly stated who last changed the program. The program is renamed or the version number is of the form x.y.z, where x.y is the version of the original program and z is an arbitrary suffix. ------------------------------------------------------------- Both Debian and Mandriva are shipping it, so it looks like that for them the license is acceptable. ;-) Is this license acceptable for Fedora too and if yes, what should I put in RPM's License tag? Do we have to handle the version in the rpm package differently or can we assume that our regular NVR is sufficient to fulfill 2.b? Best regards, Christian

2 1

Is this the MIT license?
by Bryan Kearney 02 Nov '09

02 Nov '09

Not labeled as such, but I am pretty sure it is: http://github.com/ffi/ffi/blob/master/LICENSE -- bk

2 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal November 2009