legal March 2010

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

17 participants
19 discussions

"Microsoft's empty promise"
by Christopher Svanefalk 10 Mar '10

10 Mar '10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, This article by the FSF is hardly fresh news, but I think its content is disturbing: Is it true that the Microsoft Community Promise really is only a covenant-not-to-sue (which does not have to be respected by any third party to whom any patents may be transferred), rather than a real patent licence? If this is the case, how does this effect Mono's place in Fedora? Doesn't this potentially make it an encumbered item? I use Mono and plan to be using it as a large part of my day-to-day work, so I would very much like to see it continue to be treated as a legitimate Fedora package. Thanks for any viewpoints! Blessings, Christopher Svanefalk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Charset: UTF8 Version: Hush 3.0 Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify wpwEAQMCAAYFAkuXffsACgkQQJM2U8zwlkaWNwP+NDKJHOe7zHjs6Cz0soVrAU5Tiogi Zd8SLzlGtYmETHz+GTlWq99DKvPNgtNO/GthDr2gwMbBz84YHqJHnqbyym0ZTHg2VIFq QoNHAhjIMTuRu/ob7BHCyPZliR8BfEtjOAFEZ6+36f/cevtH1MUMI/wp5EMuruRI8FMH di4Hp0o= =KgOf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

updating the MPL
by Luis Villa 10 Mar '10

10 Mar '10

Hello, Fedora legal geeks. Earlier today Mozilla announced that we're launching a community process to update, simplify, and modernize the MPL. You can find more information about the process at http://mpl.mozilla.org/ We're planning to address issues relevant to this group such as making the license more generic, (hopefully) reducing the number of duplicate licenses, and making the license easier to understand (so that Fedora contributors aren't worrying about what it means). We're fairly confident that the updated version will continue to fulfill the requirements of the Open Source Definition, and therefore be acceptable to Fedora, but we also want to make sure this is the case and continues to be the case. Your feedback on the MPL and Fedora would be a great help here. Because we want to make sure that the license continues to work well for Linux distributions, we'd like to make sure information about the process and participation fora are easy for you to find. I will of course continue to hang out on this list, but we're hoping we can aggregate many comments through our own tools: * co-ment for comments on the issues, text, etc. The more that can be done via co-ment the better, given our limited bandwidth for reading and discussion. Available at http://mpl.mozilla.org/participate/comment/ * mpl-update mailing list for discussion of the process and important announcements like new drafts, information at: http://www.mozilla.org/community/developer-forums.html#governance-mpl-update Please feel free to join the process through any of these tools, or to contact me directly if there is a topic that doesn't seem to fit in either of those tools. Thanks- look forward to working with you- Luis -- Luis Villa, Mozilla Legal work email: lvilla(a)mozilla.com (preferred) work phone: 650-903-0800 x327 personal: http://tieguy.org/about/

3 4

"Microsoft's empty promise" - article link
by Christopher Svanefalk 10 Mar '10

10 Mar '10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Here is the article I was referring to in my last mail...forgot to link it before sending, sorry! http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Charset: UTF8 Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify Version: Hush 3.0 wpwEAQMCAAYFAkuXfm4ACgkQQJM2U8zwlkbZyQP+LgWtP9Fmvpd8RCEC0zaBcJSzUrTi zzlhxVTRjcZ49q1ijG6jtQH1LTp8nzUnlGZr1+33b+5AWbLKEnB97RJq3J53X9EEaTzS 4AsK3vK1+Sh4DlGygwEzXk5cvgvIDQjku0R8jOardPsQproV/KYOMTBHuwoVYXp1IdLz BG5strk= =fenb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Does the GPL cover this?
by Christopher Svanefalk 09 Mar '10

09 Mar '10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:38:48 +0100 "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote: >On 03/08/2010 03:27 PM, Christopher Svanefalk wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I would like to implement some Java-beans specific functionality >> into a GTK project I am writing in C#. Basically, I want to make >> interfaces/classes that mimic the functionality of Bean-specific >> stuff like PropertyChangeListener, ActionListener etc. >> >> It is really not much coding or complex at all, and I will _not_ >be >> looking at the Java sourcecode for this, and the only things I >am >> thinking of _copying_ are the names of the of the methods and >> interfaces/classes in question. >> >> However, would doing this cause me to have any obligations under >> the GPL, ASL or other applicable license for the Java classes? I >am >> guessing functionality is not copyrightable, but what about >names >> of classes etc? > >Well, first of all, an argument could be made that when you look >at >sourcecode file A which does foo, then you go and implement >sourcecode >file B which also does foo, that sourcecode file B is a derived >work, >and needs to inherit the licensing from file A. > >By choosing identical method names, if it ever got legally >complicated, >you might run into trouble proving that your code was not a >derived work >of the other code. > >If you're really not planning on copying any of the functional >code, I >would personally recommend that you not reuse the function names, >not >only for the legal murkiness that it would cause, but also because >it >might cause confusion with the API for the other code. > >~spot, who is not a lawyer, thus, this is not legal advice, and >you >should not treat it as such Ok, thanks again Spot! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Charset: UTF8 Version: Hush 3.0 Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify wpwEAQMCAAYFAkuWICsACgkQQJM2U8zwlkZ8ewP/cK6bH8v6WYjR4u0SILqYkLUec8t0 U9pIWPAdXwZqxPFkqNWuqlhIpPQ2upH+Etb4YPbDFYkcm4TLI1LXEvxYEQQ1RKxBbtA0 qW02lovhM0Z05tgxg/I1vGi79yeph/yyEWNs82V3+uIsCW8N+s7ReYb4lxiwIAQ+gg05 kUU1ozU= =1tU/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Does the GPL cover this?
by Christopher Svanefalk 08 Mar '10

08 Mar '10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I would like to implement some Java-beans specific functionality into a GTK project I am writing in C#. Basically, I want to make interfaces/classes that mimic the functionality of Bean-specific stuff like PropertyChangeListener, ActionListener etc. It is really not much coding or complex at all, and I will _not_ be looking at the Java sourcecode for this, and the only things I am thinking of _copying_ are the names of the of the methods and interfaces/classes in question. However, would doing this cause me to have any obligations under the GPL, ASL or other applicable license for the Java classes? I am guessing functionality is not copyrightable, but what about names of classes etc? Sorry if this is not overly related to Fedora, but I have gotten many good answers on this list, and I was hoping somebody could help me out with this little concern. Blessings, Christopher Svanefalk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Charset: UTF8 Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify Version: Hush 3.0 wpwEAQMCAAYFAkuVXb4ACgkQQJM2U8zwlkakkgP/V0MkYaVJTivyVuMfyrSnGPeT5kxP CUVPZ+cmLhyxZ9/Klrgzggrd5c8MfzmL1zm4EdNeVDM3kYty8buMX6oMFdXbg1ur7pQo Pldrd22/IWldZq+hJfnmAUJxTpha78h9eO/V8NxgBHWI7h8LTNIQkwd6EndqioGUBU+l IDQgvjE= =8zRe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

MIT license
by Tareq Al Jurf 05 Mar '10

05 Mar '10

Hi all I just wanted to make sure about this license: http://code.typesupply.com/browser/packages/dialogKit/trunk/License.txt <http://code.typesupply.com/browser/packages/dialogKit/trunk/License.txt>Which MIT license is this, since this https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Software_License_List link lists dozens of licenses with that name. And is it acceptable? And is this BSD acceptable? http://robofab.org/download/index.html Regards -- Tareq Al Jurf Fedora Ambassador Riyadh, Saudi Arabia taljurf(a)fedoraproject.org

2 1

hunspell-ta and hunspell-or license tag issues in F-13
by Parag Nemade 02 Mar '10

02 Mar '10

Hi, hunspell-ta and hunspell-or are the dictionary packages and derived from its aspell dictionaries. I see licenses for them are as Lang aspell hunspell or GPLv2+ LGPLv2 (Upstream uses aspell wordlist and released as hunspell-or) ta GPL+ GPLv2+ (Upstream uses aspell wordlist, added some more and released as hunspell-ta) Can I get legal opinion on license tags? Are upstream of these packages using correct licenses? Thanks & Regards, Parag.

2 1

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Indirect damages
by Christopher Svanefalk 01 Mar '10

01 Mar '10

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:37:11 +0100 "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote: >On 03/01/2010 02:28 PM, Christopher Svanefalk wrote: >> Are they the same as "Consequential Damages"? > >IANAL, but I'd say yes from what I'm seeing. > >~spot Ok, thanks Spot!

1 0

Indirect damages
by Christopher Svanefalk 01 Mar '10

01 Mar '10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, ok, I know this is probably not the most proper place to ask a question like this, but I would really like to know what is meant by "Indirect Damages" (such as are disclaimed in at least one FOSS license I know of). Are they the same as "Consequential Damages"? Im looking for, primarily, a definition pertaining to US Law. This is of course not a request for legal advice by any stretch of the imagination, I would just like to understand what the term means. Thanks! Christopher Svanefalk Student and Fedora user -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Charset: UTF8 Version: Hush 3.0 Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify wpwEAQMCAAYFAkuMFVEACgkQQJM2U8zwlkYbdgP/dHLgMO/SknBoFPK6mjXst9fgORUB wowCXO/hCvtlHFGjJrHssbEEMV07DcoIw4JaLzZi+UE3XXE8WanJHWSCbkyIj6BX17L3 c2let72PVcTlFPowxVwjbIQotvPanEyMWoPev6O239RAwt/wvY56QiCIN4Ng007iJi5Y ZOQgLD0= =64c1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal March 2010