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
7 years, 7 months
ms-sys
by Alexey Torkhov
Hi.
In ms-sys review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458011
there was question regarding its legal status that was never answered:
This package contains verbatim copies of various MBRs and boot records
stuffed into arrays in the supposedly GPLed source code. Is that legally
acceptable?
Could somebody comment on this?
Alexey
14 years, 7 months
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License
by Tom Callaway
On 2009-02-26 at 16:23:27 -0500, Eric Moret <eric.moret(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The confusion comes from the upstream Paint.NET licensing which is in limbo.
> On the one hand their license says pdn is under an MIT license but on the
> other hand they have removed the link to the download source code archive
> and posted a cryptic message on their forum entitled "The source code is not
> available" and containing the following statement "Please don´t ask for it,
> or ask about it. Thanks." (
> http://paintdotnet.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=28275&p=238380&hilit=...
> ).
>
> Once this mess will be cleared up, it will be easier for mono paint to take
> action in one direction or another. In the mean time I would simply suggest
> we package the project in its current form and stick to upstream as progress
> are made towards resolution.
My concern is that the "Paint.net" upstream source contains non-free
bits (the GPC bits). The mono paint fork may have the GPC bits or it may
not. It doesn't seem to, but Miguel doesn't remember when he forked. The
very involvement of Miguel in this mess makes me uncomfortable, but the
missing facts certainly don't help.
~spot
14 years, 7 months
question on a new license in a new package.
by Michael Christie
Hi,
The HBAAPI project:
http://hbaapi.sourceforge.net/
uses a license called the SNIA Public License Version 1.0. In the source
header there is this:
* License:
* The contents of this file are subject to the SNIA Public License
* Version 1.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in
* compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the
License at
*
* /http://www.snia.org/English/Resources/Code/OpenSource.html
*
* Software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS"
* basis, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See
* the License for the specific language governing rights and
limitations
* under the License.
The problem is that this SNAI licsense is not listed under good licenses
here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
so I wanted to get it cleared, but the link to the license in the
headers is a dead link.
If the maintainers of the code do not have a copy of the license and the
people at SNIA do not respond to emails about it, what are my options?
If I find something on google in another project that says it is the
snia public license 1.0, can I include it with the source and send to
you guys to get cleared? What if I cannot find 1.0 (I can find 1.1 but
not 1.0)?
Do I just have to ditch the sourceforge project and write code from
scratch and license it how I want?
Thanks
Mike
14 years, 7 months
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License
by Tom Callaway
On 2009-02-26 at 14:21:24 -0500, Eric Moret <eric.moret(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> This is the mono paint tree; that tree has not undergone a renaming of the
> tarball dist target nor any of the embedded resulting binaries.
Wow, that seems like a really bad idea. I'd go so far as to suggest that
upstream rename things to avoid confusion, especially since there are
licensing differences and possible trademarks in play.
~spot
14 years, 7 months
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License
by Tom Callaway
On 2009-02-26 at 13:52:24 -0500, Eric Moret <eric.moret(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The current tree does not seem to have gpc mentioned anywhere.
Is that Paint.net or mono-paint? The naming is not clear.
~spot
14 years, 7 months
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License
by Tom Callaway
On 2009-02-26 at 13:21:01 -0500, Eric Moret <eric.moret(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I looked for this in the source tree but could not identify the offending
> GPC code. What I suspect is that the license we are looking at (
> http://www.getpaint.net/license.html) is for the current version (3.36) of
> Paint.NET which _may_ indeed include GPC while the mono paint tree that we
> are building (http://code.google.com/p/paint-mono/) was last synched from
> upstream over one year ago and is currently stuck on 3.00; mono paint is
> currently unable to resync because the code does not seem to be available
> from upstream Paint.NET anymore making mono paint look more like a fork of
> Paint.NET than a port to mono, see message below from the project lead.
Hmm. Does mono-paint have the same license text inside of it? If it
could be shown that mono paint forked from Paint.NET before the GPC code
was merged, then this would be a non issue, but if the license text in
mono paint has the GPC licensing in it, it is safe to assume that
happened pre fork.
~spot
14 years, 7 months
