legal July 2010

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

18 participants
17 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

Can anyone take a look at libva(FE-Legal)?
by Chen Lei 27 Jul '10

27 Jul '10

Hi all, libva is a library and tools relating to the VAAPI video playback acceleration specification. libva is included in all major distributions(debian/ubuntu meego opensuse mandriva gentoo etc.) . I need it as a dependecy to package some meego MTF packages. Howerver, the submitter(Adam Williamson) feels that i965-va-driver plugins and many other parts of libva may have some patent issues. Are there any legal guys or developers who are familiar with libva can help to clarify the patent issues in libva? The Review Request is here and waits for a legal review for almost one year: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518546 Thanks a lot! Regards, Chen Lei

1 0

wikipedia has posted our logo source again
by Máirín Duffy 24 Jul '10

24 Jul '10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fedora_logo.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RH-Fedora_logo-nonfree.svg I had a big fight with wikipedia back in 2007 or 2008 and they removed the SVG versions of the logo in favor of PNGs. You can see in the second ink above they even acknowledged that they did it. Yet wikipedia users have posted it yet again. What should we do? ~m

2 2

PETSc license
by Shakthi Kannan 22 Jul '10

22 Jul '10

Hi, Can you please let me know what should be the license for PETSc [1]? http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-as/documentation/faq.html#license http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-as/documentation/copyright.html Thanks, SK [1] Portable, Extensible Toolkit for Scientific Computation (PETSc). http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-as/index.html. -- Shakthi Kannan http://www.shakthimaan.com

3 3

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

Not sure about this license
by Zan 15 Jul '10

15 Jul '10

It isn't on the approved list, but looks a bit like a modified BSD license to my untrained eye. It is for a piece of software called Gold, that I would like to package for Fedora EPEL. Could someone tell me if it would be okay, and if so what I should put in the spec file? Thanks Jess Copyright (c) 2003 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute. 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. · Neither the name of the Battelle nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR 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.

2 1

Open Source Hardware (OSHW) definition 0.3
by Shakthi Kannan 14 Jul '10

14 Jul '10

Hi, Can you please let me know if the Open Source Hardware (OSHW) [1] definition 0.3 is an acceptable license for Fedora? Version 1.0 is to be released at the Open Hardware Summit [2] at New York City on September 23, 2010. Thanks, SK [1] OSHW. http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW [2] Open Hardware Summit. http://www.openhardwaresummit.org/ -- Shakthi Kannan http://www.shakthimaan.com

2 1

What license is this? BSD or AML?
by Ankur Sinha 14 Jul '10

14 Jul '10

hey, What License would this be? > Copyright (C) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Apple Inc. All rights reserved. > > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions > are met: > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > 2. 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. > > THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY APPLE INC. AND ITS CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY > EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED > WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE > DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL APPLE INC. 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. > The body matches the BSD 2 clause license[1], but the Copyright makes me think it's an AML[2]. (But I'm no expert) I haven't blocked the review request[3] with a FE-LEGAL because both these licenses are good. Thanks, Regards, Ankur [1] > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD [2] > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Apple_MIT_License [3] > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611010 > "webkitgtk3 - GTK+ 3 port of webkit"

2 1

Tanuki Software Ltd Community License Agreement v1.1
by Ville Skyttä 14 Jul '10

14 Jul '10

Hello, Recent versions of tanukiwrapper are licensed under this license: http://wrapper.tanukisoftware.com/doc/english/licenseCommunity.html Am I right in that they seem to be adding additional restrictions over GPLv2 (e.g. extend the "viral" nature of GPL also to non-derivative/aggregated works), and what's Fedora's take on that license? It's not currently listed in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

2 1

Incorrect use of Fedora logo
by Gerard Braad 14 Jul '10

14 Jul '10

Hi, I noticed the following in the FourSquare application directory. http://foursquare.com/app/foursquare__wordpress I do not think this is appropriate. What would be the best way to deal with this? Gerard -- Gerard Braad — 吉拉德 Project-lead Fedora-MIPS http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:gbraad

2 2

`tomtom` renaming
by Ankur Sinha 09 Jul '10

09 Jul '10

hi, Since the review request[1] was marked a FE-Legal because of a potential trademark concern[2], upstream has agreed to rename the package[3]. Can you please take 5 minutes and have a look at the new name(s) upstream is thinking of. It would help in keeping the review going. Quoting upstream's latest comment[3]: > hello. > > Some time has passed since the last comment about renaming the project, and I > settled on a new name. I'd like to get Redhat's legal team approval if possible > before actually renaming the project. > > The name that I would like to use is "Scout", after the character "Jean Louise > 'Scout' Finch" in the book "To kill a mockingbird". I have searched for > trademarks with this word on the uspto.gov site and I didn't find anything that > seems to be directly using this name. > > Would this name have the approval of the legal team? If so, I'll rename the > project right away and packaging can then continue without the fear of future > legal/acceptation problems. Thank you. regards, Ankur [1] > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583672 [2] > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583672#c12 [3] > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583672#c13

1 0

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

Embargoed countries IRC support policy
by Jonathan Dieter 07 Jul '10

07 Jul '10

What is/should be Fedora's policy when it comes to helping people on IRC who are from embargoed countries? I'm asking because a situation just happened in #fedora where someone from Iran asked for help, and someone from the UK refused to help. Obviously that's their prerogative, but if I'm going to help them, I want to know that I'm not flouting some Fedora guideline. Jonathan (who's incredibly happy that Lebanon's not on the embargoed list)

3 3

New license for distribution: LibRaw license
by Siddhesh Poyarekar 06 Jul '10

06 Jul '10

Hi, I am packaging LibRaw (http://libraw.org) which is needed as a dependency for Shotwell 0.6.1. The library is distributed under 3 licenses: * LGPL 2.1 * CDDL 1.0 * LibRaw Software License (27 March 2010 version) The license text is here: http://www.libraw.org/data/LICENSE.LibRaw.pdf It seems like a commercial use license and is probably not a Free one. I am required to mention the license in my spec file for packaging, but it is not in the list below: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Software_License_List Could someone tell me how to proceed? Can this license be added to the list of licenses above? The package review is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=602279 Thanks, Siddhesh

2 1

nesC License clarification
by Shakthi Kannan 06 Jul '10

06 Jul '10

Hi, Need clarification on the License to be used for nesC [1] spec file: The compiler is provided under GPLv2. But, the Java classes that provide support for reading nesC's XML output are Copyright (c) 2004-2006 Intel Corporation. These were released under the Intel Open Source License (now deprecated) [2]. In the latest CVS tree, it has been updated: http://nescc.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/nescc/nesc/COPYRIGHT?revision=1.3&v… 22 The Java classes that provide support for reading nesC's XML output are 23 Copyright (c) 2004-2006 Intel Corporation 24 25 These files are provided under a dual BSD/GPLv2 license. When using or 26 redistributing these files, you may do so under either license. 27 So, should I use "GPLv2 and GPLv2/BSD" in the License section of the .spec file? Appreciate your inputs, Thanks! SK [1] nesC. http://nescc.sourceforge.net/ [2] Bad licenses. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Bad_Licenses -- Shakthi Kannan http://www.shakthimaan.com

2 1

Is there patent issues with daisy plasma?
by alekcejk＠googlemail.com 03 Jul '10

03 Jul '10

Hi, There is review request for KDE applications launcher daisy: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=577975 Homepages of project: http://www.cdlszm.org/ http://kde-look.org/content/show.php/Daisy?content=102077 Is there patent issues similar to cairo-dock that makes impossible to have daisy in Fedora repository? Alexey Kurov <nucleo(a)fedoraproject.org>

1 0

Old wiki page
by Paul W. Frields 02 Jul '10

02 Jul '10

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraLegalIssues This old page is no longer monitored, although it might have some value as a reminder of Things Once Done. Should we move it to the Archive namespace? -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal July 2010