legal May 2010

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

15 participants
13 discussions

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CAcert.org license
by Tom Callaway 12 Feb '16

12 Feb '16

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

4 6

Please define "effective license" (for the love of consistency)
by Orcan Ogetbil 19 Jul '10

19 Jul '10

1) I came across another review with the same license question. The source files have one of the GPLv2, GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ headers each. They get compiled and produce 1 final binary executable. None of the headers (or other source code files) go to the final RPM. What goes to the license tag of the package? Ref: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537325#c4 2) Hypothetical question (although happens rather frequently): What if there was a -devel subpackage and .h files with different licenses ended up in this -devel subpackage? Orcan

8 14

Trusster Open Source License
by Shakthi Kannan 07 Jul '10

07 Jul '10

Hi, Could you please clarify if the Trusster [1] Open Source License is an acceptable Free/Open Source Software License for the Fedora project. The Teal [2] project uses this license: === BEGIN === Trusster Open Source License version 1.0a (TRUST) copyright (c) 2006 Mike Mintz and Robert Ekendahl. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how to obtain complete source code for this software and any accompanying software that uses this software. The source code must either be included in the distribution or be available in a timely fashion for no more than the cost of distribution plus a nominal fee, and must be freely redistributable under reasonable and no more restrictive conditions. For an executable file, complete source code means the source code for all modules it contains. It does not include source code for modules or files that typically accompany the major components of the operating system on which the executable file runs. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY MIKE MINTZ AND ROBERT EKENDAHL ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT, ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL MIKE MINTZ AND ROBERT EKENDAHL OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. === END === Thanks! SK [1] Trustter. http://www.trusster.com [2] Teal. A Verification Utility and Connection Library. http://www.trusster.com/products/teal/ -- Shakthi Kannan http://www.shakthimaan.com

2 9

Fedora Project Contributor Agreement Draft Revision Posted (Replacement for Fedora Individual Contributor License Agreement)
by Tom Callaway 28 May '10

28 May '10

Hi Fedora! Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on the Fedora Project Contributor Agreement (FPCA). We listened to your concerns, and have amended the draft slightly. Here are the key changes that we've made: 1) We removed undefined references to "free". 2) We replaced the term "electronic" with "digital". 3) Most importantly, we made several changes to explicitly address the problem of reuse of default-licensed CC-BY-SA content within GPL-covered works. (Basically, we added a GPL exception.) The full text of the revised FPCA, along with a FAQ, can be found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Revised_Fedora_CLA_Draft Fedora Legal wishes to give the Fedora community a window of time for discussion and review of the revised FPCA. Due to the fact that the changes are relatively minor, and the original draft has been open for comments for some time now, this second window is open until June 4, 2010 (2010-06-04). After that point, either another revised FPCA will be released for review, or we will begin the process of phasing in the FPCA and phasing out the Fedora ICLA. Thanks in advance, Tom "spot" Callaway, Fedora Legal

1 0

Can autotalent be packaged for Fedora?
by David Cornette 24 May '10

24 May '10

I am thinking of packaging autotalent <http://web.mit.edu/tbaran/www/autotalent.html> for Fedora, but I first wanted to make sure that license and copyright permitted it. The source distribution contains the following files: autotalent.c COPYING ladspa.h Makefile mayer_fft.c mayer_fft.h README The README file says "By Thomas A. Baran", but does not say anything about copyright or license. The file COPYING states the following, which is followed by the text of the GPLv2: The bulk of the code in Autotalent is released under GPL2. However, the FFT routine was taken from PureData (http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/software.html) which was released under a license that is similar to the BSD license. So with the exception of the mayer_fft.* files, everything should fall under GPL2. -Tom END QUOTE The files autotalent.c and Makefile both state that they are under GPLv2+. The file ladspa.h is under LGPLv2.1+ The file mayer_fft.h has no attribution, copyright or license information at all. The file mayer.c has this to say: /* This is the FFT routine taken from PureData, a great piece of software by Miller S. Puckette. http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/software.html */ /* ** FFT and FHT routines ** Copyright 1988, 1993; Ron Mayer ** [Documentation of functions and their signatures omitted] ** ** ** NOTE: This routine uses at least 2 patented algorithms, and may be ** under the restrictions of a bunch of different organizations. ** Although I wrote it completely myself, it is kind of a derivative ** of a routine I once authored and released under the GPL, so it ** may fall under the free software foundation's restrictions; ** it was worked on as a Stanford Univ project, so they claim ** some rights to it; it was further optimized at work here, so ** I think this company claims parts of it. The patents are ** held by R. Bracewell (the FHT algorithm) and O. Buneman (the ** trig generator), both at Stanford Univ. ** If it were up to me, I'd say go do whatever you want with it; ** but it would be polite to give credit to the following people ** if you use this anywhere: ** Euler - probable inventor of the fourier transform. ** Gauss - probable inventor of the FFT. ** Hartley - probable inventor of the hartley transform. ** Buneman - for a really cool trig generator ** Mayer(me) - for authoring this particular version and ** including all the optimizations in one package. ** Thanks, ** Ron Mayer; mayer(a)acuson.com ** */ /* This is a slightly modified version of Mayer's contribution; write * msp(a)ucsd.edu for the original code. Kudos to Mayer for a fine piece * of work. -msp */ END QUOTE The license for Pure Data may be found at <http://www-crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/Software/LICENSE.txt>, and it is indeed a 3 clause BSD type license. However, it is not included in the source distribution of autotalent, and the ownership of mayer_fft.c seems less than clear to me. Can autotalent be packaged as is? If it can be packaged, do we need to include the Pure Data license file as a second source file in order to comply with that license? Or does "If it were up to me, I'd say go do whatever you want with it" mean we can do whatever we want with it? Also, the patents in question appear to be U.S. Patents 4646256 and 4878187, which, if I understand correctly, have expired. Thanks for giving this your attention. David Cornette

3 3

License header for config files?
by Till Maas 24 May '10

24 May '10

Hi, I asked for proper licensing on a project I was going to package and the question came up, whether config files should have a license header. The ticket at their issue tracker is here: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2869635&group_id=… The config file can be accessed here: http://rcracki.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/rcracki/rcracki_mt/rcracki_mt.ini… What is your advise here? Regards Till

2 1

Request for Comments: Fedora Project Contributor Agreement Draft (Replacement for Fedora Individual Contributor License Agreement)
by Tom Callaway 20 May '10

20 May '10

Hello Fedora! (Is this thing on?) Sorry for the very wide net, but we wanted to make sure as many members of our community could see this as possible. For some time now, Fedora has been working with Red Hat Legal to come up with a replacement for the Fedora Individual Contributor License Agreement (aka, the Fedora ICLA). As a result, the Fedora Project Contributor Agreement (FPCA) has been approved by Red Hat Legal, and is now being presented to the Fedora Community for comments and discussion. The full text of the FPCA, along with a FAQ, can be found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Revised_Fedora_CLA_Draft Please, take a moment and read the FPCA and the FAQ. It is not a long, or overly complicated document, as legal documents go, but it is important that all Fedora Contributors read it over and make sure they understand it and like it (or can at least agree to it). Fedora Legal wishes to give the Fedora community a window of time for discussion and review of the FPCA. This window is open until May 18, 2010 (2010-05-18). After that point, either a revised FPCA will be released for review, or we will begin the process of phasing in the FPCA and phasing out the Fedora ICLA. Thanks in advance, Tom "spot" Callaway, Fedora Legal P.S. Fedora Legal would like to give a huge thank you to the people involved behind the scenes to make the FPCA possible. The primary author was Richard Fontana, with feedback from Tom Callaway, Pamela Chestek, Paul Frields, and Robert Tiller. Feel free to give them gifts (for example, drinks or tasty snacks) as thank yous, although, this is not a requirement (legal or otherwise). ;)

10 24

eSCAPe License (GPLv3 modified license)
by Stanislav Ochotnicky 18 May '10

18 May '10

I have recently been asked to look into packaging for eSCAPe: http://www.g2-inc.com/escape Before I dig into packaging itself I would like to be sure it won't be useless because of legal issues. This package uses modified GPLv3 License. I attach licenses used for library, editor and as part of headers of some source files. Can we use these licenses for Fedora? There are certain parts that make me wonder... Please note that program consists of 2 parts: * library * editor Both are licensed under the same license, so even library uses GPLv3 and not LGPL. Please CC me as I am not subscribed to this list. Thanks, -- Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky(a)redhat.com> Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno PGP: 71A1677C Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com

2 1

A question about Sakal Bharati : a reference font for Indic languages
by sankarshan 18 May '10

18 May '10

It appears that the various ministries in India are discussing to implement a reference font (OpenType Font) to enable standardization in eGovernance aspects. More details on the URL below. The link to the disclaimer and, the text of the "Copyright" part of the font is also passed below. Does the font appear 'sane' otherwise ? More importantly, since this is a 'reference font' with restrictive disclaimer, would any font based on this also inherit the same restrictions ? And, are there issues in creating font test cases for a reference font with such restrictions ? <http://tdil.mit.gov.in/download/SakalBharati.htm> Sakal Bharati is a Unicode based Open Type font which includes 11 scripts in one font i.e. Assamese, Bengali, Devanagari, Gujarati, Kannada Malayalam, Oriya, Punjabi, Telugu, Tamil & Urdu. It has used Mono thick (Equal thickness of horizontal stems and vertical stem) glyphs for all scripts. Same X height for all 11 scripts. There are more than 3698 glyphs in the Font. <http://tdil.mit.gov.in/download/SBdisclaimer.htm> Copyright (c) 2009, TDIL-DIT & CDAC-GIST, INDIA. SakalBharati Normal Open Type Font. ONLY FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. Not to be distributed along with any software for commercial purposes without prior written consent from C-DAC-GIST, Pune. $ otfinfo -i SakalBharati\ Normal_Ship.ttf Family: SakalBharati Subfamily: Normal Full name: SakalBharati Normal PostScript name: SakalBharati-Normal Preferred family: SakalBharati Preferred subfamily: Normal Mac font menu name: SakalBharati Normal Version: 9.03 Unique ID: CDAC: SakalBharati Normal: 2009 Description: Copyright (c) 2009, TDIL-DIT & CDAC-GIST, INDIA. SakalBharati Normal Open Type Font. ONLY FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.Not to be distributed along with any software for commercial purposes without prior written consent from C-DAC-GIST, Pune. Manufacturer: CDAC Trademark: CDAC Copyright: Copyright (c) 2009, TDIL-DIT & CDAC-GIST, INDIA. SakalBharati Normal Open Type Font. ONLY FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. Not to be distributed along with any software for commercial purposes without prior written consent from C-DAC-GIST, Pune. License URL: http:/www.cdac.in/gist License Description: Copyright (c) 2009, TDIL-DIT & CDAC-GIST, INDIA. SakalBharati Normal Open Type Font. ONLY FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. Not to be distributed along with any software for commercial purposes without prior written consent from C-DAC-GIST, Pune. -- sankarshan mukhopadhyay <http://sankarshan.randomink.org/blog/>

2 1

My new blog
by Ben Hamment 12 May '10

12 May '10

Hello I have recently started development on a new blog about fedora, Guides, tutorials and problem solving. Im emailing you to request permission to firstly use the domain name and secondly use the Fedora Infinity logo in my header(not as my header). If this will be a problem please let me know what I can do to stay within the usage guidelines. Any extra advice about what else I need to do would be great. The Url is http://www.fedorastorm.com its still under construction. Thank You Ben

2 1

About packing Lucida
by Man Wong 05 May '10

05 May '10

I am pretty sure there should not be any issues with packaging Lucida in Fedora with the license, as it is under the good license list on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#Other_good_Lic… However, just to play it safe, I would like to reconfirm that we are indeed allowed to package Lucida in Fedora, in case anything have changed. Thanks, Man Lung Wong

2 1

Status of ICQ-related apps in Fedora.
by Peter Lemenkov 05 May '10

05 May '10

Hello All! It seems, that *all* 3rd party software, which is should connect to ICQ networks for normal operation, violates their EULA (or urges users to violate EULA). Thus, keeping in mind, that there is no way to use ICQ-related software w/o explicitly violating their license agreement, and there are many other open alternatives (and even proprietary systems, which permits 3rd party applications), I think that software, designed to work with explicit requirement to be connected to ICQ network, should be considered as unacceptable for inclusion into Fedora (exept thiose titles, who has explicit permission from ICQ LLC for connecting and interoperating with their network). Any opinions? http://www.icq.com/legal/end-user-license.html "You agree not to (1) create or use any software other than the Software provided by ICQ or by America Online, Inc., or any affiliate thereof, to enter your ICQ number and password or to access the ICQ Services, without the express written authorization of ICQ; (2) extract information from the ICQ Services, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, alter, duplicate, make copies, create derivative works from, distribute or provide others with the Software, the ICQ communications protocol or any information available on, derived or extracted from the ICQ Services, or any part thereof; (3) block, disable or otherwise affect any advertising, advertisement banner window, links to other sites and services, or other features that constitute an integral part of the Software and ICQ Services; (4) connect, use, attempt to connect or use in any way the ICQ Services, for any commercial purpose and any other purpose that is not for your private personal use in good faith and as explicitly offered on the ICQ Web site; and (5) incorporate, integrate or otherwise include the Software or any portion thereof (including the ICQ communications protocols) into any software, program or product that communicates, accesses, or otherwise connects with the ICQ Service or any other instant messaging, Internet, or online service." -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.

3 2

Open Market/FastCGI license
by Jason L Tibbitts III 03 May '10

03 May '10

The following license (from the FCGI perl module) looks to be mostly MIT, but with a couple of extra bits. I'm pretty sure this is still free, but I'm not sure it can still be considered to be MIT. Could I get a clarification? We ship our stock perl package with a soft dependency on the FCGI module, so I found it odd that we don't already ship it. I hope it's not due to this license. ========= This FastCGI application library source and object code (the "Software") and its documentation (the "Documentation") are copyrighted by Open Market, Inc ("Open Market"). The following terms apply to all files associated with the Software and Documentation unless explicitly disclaimed in individual files. Open Market permits you to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license this Software and the Documentation for any purpose, provided that existing copyright notices are retained in all copies and that this notice is included verbatim in any distributions. No written agreement, license, or royalty fee is required for any of the authorized uses. Modifications to this Software and Documentation may be copyrighted by their authors and need not follow the licensing terms described here. If modifications to this Software and Documentation have new licensing terms, the new terms must be clearly indicated on the first page of each file where they apply. OPEN MARKET MAKES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL OPEN MARKET BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO THIS SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR SIMILAR DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS OR LOST DATA, EVEN IF OPEN MARKET HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION ARE PROVIDED "AS IS". OPEN MARKET HAS NO LIABILITY IN CONTRACT, TORT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THIS SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION. ========= - J<

2 4

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal May 2010