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. :)
A package I'm reviewing includes the following in a "docs/license" file
(I have wrapped the text which was originally on two lines):
The !IguanaWorks USB Infrared Transceiver firmware and drivers are
provided under the
[http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/info/GPLv2.html Gnu Public
License (GPL), version 2]. You are free to use the firmware and driver
software freely within the constraints of the license. Any changes
submitted back to !IguanaWorks become the property of !IguanaWorks and
are then licensed to others under the GPL version 2. '''If you submit
changes to us, you are giving !IguanaWorks the copyright on those
If you are interested in commerical use of our hardware or software,
please contact us for alternative licensing.
I have a few questions regarding this:
Is it remotely valid for them to claim copyright without any formal
copyright assignment documents being exchanged? I suppose this depends
on what "submit" means, but it sure sounds as if they claim that you
hand over your copyright just by being friendly and sending a bugfix to
Does this in any way impact the suitability of this package for Fedora?
The firmware mentioned is given in the form of hex code, which doesn't
seem to be "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to
it." I know the issue of GPL'd binary-only stuff must have come up
before; is there a summary of the issue anywhere I can look at?
Most of the drupal modules that I've looked into packaging do not have any
license preamble in the code. They contain a copy of the GPLv2 license in
LICENSE.txt. As such, I've marked them as GPLv2. According to
http://drupal.org/licensing/faq/#q4 modules on the drupal.org cvs site should
be GPLv2+, and I've had requests to update the license tag:
However, without explicit mention in the text of the module code I'm hesitant
to change the license tag. Help?
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
I'm trying to determine if the LZMA SDK is properly in the public
domain. The author (Igor Pavlov) is Russian, and supposedly the work
was placed into the public domain on 2008-11-23 which I guess would mean
that the Russian Federation's new copyright code would be involved.
However, that's about as far into the matter as I can comprehend.
Anyway, this is about all I have:
7z ANSI-C Decoder is part of the LZMA SDK.
LZMA SDK is written and placed in the public domain by Igor Pavlov.
4.61 beta 2008-11-23
- The bug in ANSI-C LZMA Decoder was fixed:
If encoded stream was corrupted, decoder could access memory
outside of allocated range.
- Some changes in ANSI-C 7z Decoder interfaces.
- LZMA SDK is placed in the public domain.
The code is at http://downloads.sourceforge.net/sevenzip/lzma465.tar.bz2
Any guidance would be appreciated.
I had contacted upstream regarding PublicDomain license for Haskell
package MonadCatchIO-mtl  as mentioned at:
The response is as follows:
=== REPLY ===
If I recall correctly, this package was built from gathering code
snippets that were posted by others on public mailing lists. Hence, I
consider it to be in the public domain and don't want to claim any
form of copyright on it (not even the claiming-and-releasing that, if
I understand correctly, the CC-0 license does).
If I understand correctly, if I don't claim to be the copyright
holder, I cannot provide you with a useful statement. Of course, I'm
not a lawyer and I don't have much experience with licensing issues,
so I'm open to more knowledgable advice.
=== END ===
Please let me know as to how we can proceed further?
Appreciate any inputs,
 HackageDB. MonadCatchIO-mtl.
I'm reviewing erlang-bitcask for Fedora:
<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652623>. A good way of
browsing through upstream source is here:
Upstream doesn't have a LICENSE file or similar and the license is not
mentioned in the README file either. I have two licensing related
1. All other relevant source files have a license header except
include/bitcask.hrl and c_src/erl_nif_compat.h. I'm not sure if they
constitute a "work" in terms of copyright and should have licenses. What
do you think?
2. This is, to me, the more important question. There is a .pdf file and
some .png files in the doc directory. To me these seem like works which
are under copyright, but I can't find a license for them anywhere in the
source tree. Does this make them non-free and non-redistributable?
su, 2011-01-16 kello 08:56 -0500, Justin O'Brien kirjoitti:
> On 01/16/2011 06:10 AM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
> > su, 2011-01-16 kello 13:22 +0300, Peter Lemenkov kirjoitti:
> >> Also he kindly
> >> granted us permission to redistribute doc-file freely w/o
> >> modifications. I hope that it's ok for content.
> > I would like to get a confirmation from someone that this is OK in
> > Fedora before accepting the package.
> without the right to modify I doubt this will be excepted.
I think so too. The .png files seem to be images from the .pdf file, so
effectively we're talking about distributing the .pdf file. If (and
when) that can't be done in Fedora, Peter could just put a README.Fedora
file into the package, which would contain a URL to the .pdf file. It
seems to be available in http://downloads.basho.com/papers/
when is a appropriate response to be awaited to the above issue in Fedora
13, Fedora 14 and probably in development data for the next Fedora
As the author of the original ICC profile data I find this not acceptable.
developing for colour management
www.behrmann.name + www.oyranos.org