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. :)
I'm writing some new code for a PHP project I'd like to license with a
permissive license, BSD or MIT. In the wiki I found a lot of variants,
can anyone advice me which one would be better to use?
Bonus points for a short one, as I'm going to add it on each file's header.
Thanks in advance
http://morefedora.blogspot.comhttp://identi.ca/giallu - http://twitter.com/giallu
Dear spot & legal team,
Not sure how trustworthy this email is -- after all, how did they
somehow think I'm the "CEO" of Fedora Project? -- but if there is
indeed a company trying to register Fedora domains then we probably
want to take a look.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Subject: URGENT Notice of Internet Intellectual Property Rights
"Fedoraproject" Dispute in China
(If you are NOT CEO,please forward this to your CEO, because this is
We are the organization of Asian Brand and Domain registration
dispute, have something need to confirm with you. we formally received
an application on Dec 15,2010. one company which called "India
Neltion Pvt Ltd" are applying to register "Fedoraproject" as Brand
Name and Domains.
fedoraproject.com.hk (Hong Kong)
fedoraproject.hk (Hong Kong)
But we found that "India Neltion Pvt Ltd" is not the original owner of
the brand and trademark in the checking period,which belong to your
company .I need confirm with you whether your company authorized that
company to register these domain name.If you have done that ,We will
finish the registration for them and link to their website.
If not ,please let me know ASAP.
In addition, we hereby affirm that our time limit for dissent
application is 7 workdays. If your company files no dissent within the
time limit, we will unconditionally approve the application.
Tel: +0086-566-2629-555 Fax: +0086-566-2629-666
Address:Room205, No.D4 Qingxi South Garden, South-ChangJiang
Road,Guichi Shi District,Chizhou,China
Michel Alexandre Salim
GPG key ID: 78884778
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
So ages ago the jogl package was removed from the distribution due to
licensing issues. At the time the indicated reason was that jogl was
under the SGI Free Software License B, which as we all know was finally
cleaned up a couple of years ago. However, it doesn't seem to be that
simple, because the source contains the following:
** NOTE: The Original Code (as defined below) has been licensed to Sun
** Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun") under the SGI Free Software License B
** (Version 1.1), shown above ("SGI License"). Pursuant to Section
** 3.2(3) of the SGI License, Sun is distributing the Covered Code to
** you under an alternative license ("Alternative License"). This
** Alternative License includes all of the provisions of the SGI License
** except that Section 2.2 and 11 are omitted. Any differences between
** the Alternative License and the SGI License are offered solely by Sun
** and not by SGI.
Which begs the question of whether this alternative license can still be
upgraded to FreeB 2.0 (MIT) and thus be included in Fedora again.
Section 8 still applies, which allows the license to be updated by SGI,
but I don't know how that interacts with the removed sections.
On 09/24/2010 01:29 AM, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
> Tom that would be great. The author seems to be very open and he said
> he wants only to defend the software against companies that are trying
> to sell it.
> Its wonderful piece of software and it would be nice to have it in Fedora.
Following up on this, upstream is reviewing the GPL to see if he thinks
it would be a good fit. I will keep you apprised of any other updates.