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. :)
Working my way through a package review for gargoyle.
Most of the software in the package is GPL. However, one dependency
(glulxe) has some terms that I am not sure about. Is the glulxe
license acceptable in Fedora? I've pasted it below.
The source code in this package is copyright 1999-2010 by Andrew Plotkin.
You may copy and distribute it freely, by any means and under any conditions,
as long as the code and documentation is not changed. You may also
incorporate this code into your own program and distribute that, or modify
this code and use and distribute the modified version, as long as you retain
a notice in your program or documentation which mentions my name and the
URL shown above.
I recently took over btanks and noticed that there is an exception to
the base (GPL v2) license included. Do I need to worry about this?
The exception is:
Battle Tanks is distributed in accordance with the terms and conditions of
the GNU GPL with the following interpretation and a specific Exception:
1. Definitions used in this Exception:
Battle Tanks�refers to a scalable computer game program (able to be
combined with non-Open Source Applications). The program contains limited
game logic and limited game content (including pictures, maps, visual
images of game scenery, sounds and other artwork) and is distributed free
on the GNU GPL conditions.
A Non-Open Source Application� refers to a body of expanded game content
(including pictures, maps, visual images of game scenery, sounds and
other artwork) together with patterns containing expanded game logic,
which is intended solely for the use with Battle Tanks, can work
exclusively along with Battle Tanks and shall be distributed through
selling on the terms and conditions other than those of GNU GPL.
2. Exclusive rights to Battle Tanks belong to the company
Netive Company�Ltd., Novosibirsk (Russia), which may link or combine
Battle Tanks with some non-Open Source Applications.
Netive Company�Ltd. can sign a separate written License Agreement with
a third party, under which they are granted permission to:
a) link or combine Battle Tanks with non-Open Source Applications;
b) reproduce and distribute through selling copies of non-Open Source
Applications along with Battle Tanks.
3. All the provisions granted under the section 2 of the Exception go into
effect, provided all the corresponding licenses of using non-Open Source
Applications are available and observed.
4. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of
the Program code and other code used in conjunction with the Program
except the Non-GPL Code covered by this exception.
5. Only Netive Company, Ltd. may make changes or additions to the Exception.
I was looking at the Audio Creation SIG wiki and noticed that linuxsampler
was a program that was listed on there slated for implementation. After
reviewing the website it looked like the program had a Commercial exemption
for hardware and software. Before we start spending a TON of time looking
for a new alternative I wanted to verify that we would not be able to ship
this program in a spin. I have attached the copy of the license in this
email. Thanks for all of your time and wisdom.
DSDP (http://www.mcs.anl.gov/hs/software/DSDP/) has the following
license. It appears to me to be substantially similar to an MIT
license, but IANAL. What should I call this?
(C) COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
This program discloses material protectable under copyright laws of
the United States.
Permission to copy and modify this software and its documentation is
hereby granted, provided that this notice is retained thereon and on
all copies or
modifications. The University of Chicago makes no representations as
to the suitability
and operability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as
express or implied warranty. Permission is hereby granted to use,
derivative works, and to redistribute to others, so long as this
original copyright notice
is retained. Any publication resulting from research that made use of
should cite this document.
This software was authored by:
Steven J. Benson
Mathematics and Computer Science Division
Argonne National Laboratory
Argonne IL 60439
Department of Management Science and Engineering
Stanford, CA U.S.A
Any questions or comments on the software may be directed to
benson(a)mcs.anl.gov or yinyu-ye(a)stanford.edu
Argonne National Laboratory with facilities in the states of
Illinois and Idaho, is
owned by The United States Government, and operated by the
University of Chicago under
provision of a contract with the Department of Energy.
THIS PROGRAM WAS PREPARED AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED BY AN
AGENCY OF THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT. NEITHER THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT NOR ANY
AGENCY THEREOF, NOR THE
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, NOR ANY OF THEIR EMPLOYEES OR OFFICERS,
MAKES ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, OR ASSUMES ANY LEGAL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR
COMPLETENESS, OR USEFULNESS OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS,
PRODUCT, OR PROCESS DISCLOSED,
OR REPRESENTS THAT ITS USE WOULD NOT INFRINGE PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS. REFERENCE HEREIN TO
ANY SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, PROCESS, OR SERVICE BY TRADE
MANUFACTURER, OR OTHERWISE, DOES NOT NECESSARILY CONSTITUTE OR
IMPLY ITS ENDORSEMENT,
RECOMMENDATION, OR FAVORING BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR ANY
AGENCY THEREOF. THE
VIEW AND OPINIONS OF AUTHORS EXPRESSED HEREIN DO NOT NECESSARILY
STATE OR REFLECT THOSE OF
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF.
Apologies if this has been already discussed before, I couldn't find any
reference in the archives.
The version of OpenSSL shipped by Fedora comes with the ECDSA and ECDH
algorithms stripped from the source code. Ubuntu and Debian instead are
shipping ECC-enabled versions of OpenSSL.
I did some research and found that ECC *might* be covered by a number of
I was told that the last patent supposedly covering ECC will expire in
2012, but I can't find a reliable source confirming this. Additionally,
D. J. Bernstein thinks that ECDSA and ECDH can be *already* implemented
without infringing: http://cr.yp.to/ecdh/patents.html
As usual in these cases, there's a lot of uncertainty around the ECC
patents and few people are willing to publicly discuss the problem. Can
anyone help shred some light?
_ // Bernie Innocenti