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, 10 months
Export Compliance Classifcaiton (ECCN)
by Takovich, Susan (IS)
Hello,
I am looking for the ECCN numbers for the below software:
Fedora 11
Fedora 12
Please advise.
Regards,
Sue Takovich
International Trade Compliance Analyst
Northrop Grumman Information Systems - ISD
Ph: 410-953-6651
Fax: 410-953-6515
13 years, 3 months
font licensing
by François Cami
Hi,
Please note than I am very far from being a lawyer.
I would like to package a particular font for cultural reasons. Its
glyphs can be used to render two languages and it has been created on
behalf of an official government body for cultural purposes. That body
is distributing it through its website. Unfortunately, the archive
does not contain any licensing information. I emailed that particular
government, and got a reply saying the font was "was developed for
free distribution" and that the government "(allows the) public to
freely download. It is copyrighted to <insert government body here>".
I have read the licensing guidelines for fonts and I am aware that is
not sufficient, as IIRC that means the font cannot be modified, and
probably cannot be distributed by third parties. Am I right in
believing this?
I have asked them to add a copyright notice and a license to the zip
file, preferably (of course) the SIL Open Font License 1.1.
Any advice would be nice.
Thanks,
François
13 years, 3 months
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Teeworlds license has been updated
by Florent Le Coz
On 06/08/2010 15:01, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> Thanks for the update, the pages have been updated accordingly.
>
> ~spot
Thank you.
Just a little precision, the wiki now reads:
> Older versions of this license (prior to Teeworlds 0.5.2) contained an
> additional clause:
>
I talked about the 0.5.2 version because it's the version included in
fedora. But the license was in fact changed in the 0.5.0 release[1] (the
last version having the 4th clause in its license is teeworlds version
0.4.3 [2])
So, to be even clearer, the wiki page should read:
>
> Older versions of this license (prior to Teeworlds 0.5.0) contained an
> additional clause:
>
(you can check yourself the license.txt file contained in the sources,
if you want (I just did))
[1] http://teeworlds.com/files/teeworlds-0.5.0-linux_x86.tar.gz
[2] http://teeworlds.com/files/teeworlds-0.4.3-linux_x86.tar.gz
Regards,
--
Florent Le Coz
13 years, 4 months
Teeworlds license has been updated
by Florent Le Coz
Hello,
The license of Teeworlds (http://teeworlds.com) contained in the page
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Teeworlds is out of date.
It has been updated, and in the 0.5.2 version (which is the version
included in fedora's repositories) is now as follow:
license.txt (included in the original sources, and as %doc in the fedora
rpm)
> Copyright (C) 2007-2008 Magnus Auvinen
>
> This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
> warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
> arising from the use of this software.
>
> Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
> including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
> freely, subject to the following restrictions:
>
> 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
> claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software
> in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
> appreciated but is not required.
> 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
> misrepresented as being the original software.
> 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
The issue described in the wiki page about this license is then not
longer of a concern since the clause 4 has been removed.
This page should be updated, and the description changed (or removed).
Also, in the license list page
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Software_License_List), the
"FSF Free?" column is "Yes, but only for teeworlds", though it should
now be "Yes".
Regards,
--
Florent Le Coz
13 years, 4 months
itext AGPL licensing
by Richard Fontana
itext is currently packaged in Fedora. The license is given in the
package metadata as (LGPLv2+ or MPLv1.1) and ASL 2.0 and BSD and
LGPLv2+.
As of version 5.0.0, the project has relicensed to AGPLv3. The project
says at http://itextpdf.com/terms-of-use/index.php, and in source code
notices:
In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public
License, you must retain the producer line in every PDF that is
created or manipulated using iText.
This is an additional restriction that is not authorized by section 7
of AGPLv3.
Possibly also of concern is the statement:
You can be released from the requirements of the license by
purchasing a commercial license. Buying such a license is mandatory
as soon as you develop commercial activities involving the iText
software without disclosing the source code of your own
applications.
While the examples given might generally trigger the AGPL source code
distribution requirement, surely there are conceivable "commercial
activities" that would not trigger it. The fact that the project is
now apparently organized as a dual-licensing commercial venture
justifies heightened scrutiny of such statements.
For these reasons, I propose that any future packaging of
AGPL-licensed releases of itext be subject to explicit approval by
Fedora Legal.
--
Richard E. Fontana
Red Hat, Inc.
13 years, 4 months
