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. :)
On 12/07/11 13:00, legal-request(a)lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
> Send legal mailing list submissions to
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of legal digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. Re: Stardict and unspecified legal issues (Tom Callaway)
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:22:29 -0400
> From: Tom Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Stardict and unspecified legal issues
> To: Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com>
> Cc: legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Message-ID: <4E1B0725.5040605(a)redhat.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> On 07/09/2011 12:49 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>> The stardict project was recently removed from SF due to unspecified
>> legal issues. In fact it was moved to Google Code, which was very
>> surprising to me, because I can hardly imagine a legal issue valid on
>> SF but invalid on Google Code.
>> Anyway, keeping in mind that the project owners claimed that "the
>> legal issues may never have been resolved" I think it's time to
>> reconsider whether we can ship it or not.
>> * http://stardict.sourceforge.net/
>> * http://code.google.com/p/stardict-3/
> If memory serves, the issue with stardict was with some (all?) of its
> dictionaries being of extremely dubious origins (e.g. stolen from
> non-free sources), not the code itself.
> Fedora Project
> legal mailing list
> End of legal Digest, Vol 49, Issue 7
I think Tom meant to say, allegedly stolen.
Tristan Santore BSc MBCS
Network and Infrastructure Operations
Former Thawte Notary
(Please note: Thawte has closed its WoT programme down,
and I am therefore no longer able to accredit trust)
For Fedora related issues, please email me at:
The stardict project was recently removed from SF due to unspecified
legal issues. In fact it was moved to Google Code, which was very
surprising to me, because I can hardly imagine a legal issue valid on
SF but invalid on Google Code.
Anyway, keeping in mind that the project owners claimed that "the
legal issues may never have been resolved" I think it's time to
reconsider whether we can ship it or not.
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
I'm helping out with an update to the frama-c package. Some of the
source files refer to a modified Q Public License. The modification
is to this section:
Choice of Law
This license is governed by the Laws of France.
The license file (attached) also contains this paragraph:
As a special exception to the Q Public Licence, you may develop
application programs, reusable components and other software items
that link with the original or modified versions of the Generator
and are not made available to the general public, without any of the
additional requirements listed in clause 6c of the Q Public licence.
The current spec file calls this "QPL with modifications", which
rpmlint doesn't like. Should it be "QPL with exceptions", or does the
change in governing law require this to have a more complex name?
I was just wondering if a "changelog" of sorts, detailing when licenses
are added to, or removed from, the list of acceptable licenses is
maintained somewhere? I believe it would be useful to be able to see how
the list changes over time.
Thanks in advance!