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. :)
7 years, 3 months
by Jonathan Schuett
My name is Jonathan Schuett. i am planning on making a demonstration video
about fedora in my class to showcase the many benefits of fedora over
windows. I am requesting to use fedora's likeness, screengrabs, and the
fedora logo in my video. I would be grateful if this was responded to
quickly, and, if you wish to receive a copy of the video in question, i can
arrange for that. I am a student at a technical school, and this needfs to
be finished by the end of the first semester. It would be appreciater if you
would reply to this email quickly. thank you, and have a nice day.
11 years, 8 months
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Inclusion of GPLv3 lib in GPLv2 work
by Matt McCutchen
On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 05:42 +0900, zxq9 wrote:
> I hadn't considered that. And this makes sense as concerns complete
> I'm confident, however, that the intent of the GPLv3 when it was written
> was not to hamstring the resurrection and improvement of GPLv2 code by
> its own users with an intent to release to other users (the GPLv2 having
> been written before any of this was thought up)
Again, the intent that matters is that of the projects that chose to
release under GPLv2-only and GPLv3-only, respectively, because neither
wanted their work being used under the other license.
> by way of forbidding
> inclusion of new code which amounts to nothing more than a format
> interpretation library but not an application or even a complete program
> of its own. The GPL attitude toward system libraries seems to strongly
> indicate this as well. But a format interpretation library is hardly
> "system level" so it doesn't qualify for the exclusions provided for
> system libraries explicit in the GPL.
I feel your pain, and personally believe that FSF's claim about dynamic
linking is bogus, under which assumption GPLvN would become essentially
equivalent to LGPLvN. (Though like the Fedora project, I am playing it
safe and not acting in reliance on this.) But with respect to the
intent of QCad CE, based on their choice of GPLv2 and not LGPLv2, I can
only presume that they did intend to prohibit the kind of linking you
are now pursuing (to the extent possible under copyright law). Sorry.
11 years, 8 months
Inclusion of GPLv3 lib in GPLv2 work
Is it appropriate to include a GPLv3 library into a GPLv2 work?
(A work that is expressly *not* GPLv2+?)
If not, why?
(The "for any purpose" clause seems to cover this from both directions
-- and anyway they are both GPL licenses so this is definitely within
the spirit and intent of the GPL...?)
The specific case is LibreCAD (forked from GPLv2-only QCad CE) and
OpenDWG (a GNU project which is GPLv3-only). We have communicated with
the OpenDWG maintainer and he's said a few times that he would add a
"GPLv2 or later" clause so that we could include the code without any
confusion, but this has not yet happened for whatever reason. We have
not yet fully refactored the QCad code so it is still truly a fork and
not an independent work, so we cannot upgrade the license. The original
author from Ribbonsoft has written us to express his intent to block us
from upgrading the license for as long as possible (he is also now
trying to claim that the manual included with QCad CE is not open source
-- but this is a different issue).
My understanding of the precise limits of the GPL and LGPL is a little
fuzzy when it comes to the way routines are included in different GPL
versions. It may be that the rule itself is a bit fuzzy. We know that
the OpenDWG folks wouldn't have any objection, but we're also not
looking to have any outside party suddenly become adversarial and start
pointing fingers ("that's ridiculous!" won't stop someone from trying).
If someone has a resource that covers the ins and outs of mixing GPLv2,
2+ and 3 clauses I would be most appreciative. We're a bit confused about:
1- Including new source files (our own) as GPLv3 vs GPLv2+ within a
project that is, as a whole, considered GPLv2
2- Linking GPLv3 from old GPLv2 code (such as the OpenDWG situation)
3- The point when a project is considered to be completely reworked and
no longer the property of the original author (such as what happened
with parts of the SCO case a while back). What is the threshold?
11 years, 8 months
Bunling differently-licensed code for unit tests
by Mathieu Bridon
I did the review of php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo for Remi (CCed, but he
is on the list anyway), and a licensing issue arose. Remi removed the
files from the package so that we wouldn't delay the review, but now
comes the time to fix the issue.
The situation is as follows:
1. PHP_CompatInfo is BSD-licensed.
2. In its unit tests it has a copy of a file from the PHP source code,
which is PHP-licensed.
3. This file is not used at run time by PHP_CompatInfo. It is not even
run during the unit tests, only parsed, as it presents an interesting
reproducer for a bug that had been reported to PHP_CompatInfo:
(it is actually not even usable at all outside of the rest of the PHP
As such, what would be the license of the php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo
package if Remi adds this file back:
- "BSD and PHP"?
- or simply "BSD", because parsing a file as a regression
unit test is not considered the same way as running code?
Also, I am personally a bit worried about those two paragraphs in the
3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without prior written permission. For
written permission, please contact group(a)php.net.
4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission
from group(a)php.net. You may indicate that your software works in
conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling
it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo"
Is PHP_CompatInfo considered a derived work of PHP because it includes a
file from the PHP source code in its unit tests? Should the upstream
author be concerned about renaming his module, or asking for permission
to the PHP group? If he gets a written permission, should it (most
likely the email with full headers) be included in Remi's package?
Or are we making a mountain out of a molehill and there is absolutely
nothing to worry about with this module?
Thanks in advance,
PS: I voluntarily left aside the fact that the package is actually "BSD
and MIT"-licensed because it bundles a copy of jQuery. I don't think it
is relevant to this specific issue though, and it would only have made
it more complex for me to explain it, which is why I decided it to leave
it to a post-scriptum.
11 years, 8 months
Question on config files
by Christopher Svanefalk
I am sorry if this question perhaps has an obvious answer, but I just wanted
to make sure: do config files (such as /etc/selinux/config and
/etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo) fall under the restrictions of the licenses
governing the programs they relate to, or can they be copied, distributed
and modified freely?
Thanks in advance!
11 years, 8 months
by Juan Orti Alcaine
Hello, I would like to package the software gogoc, a client to connect to a
IPv6 tunnel broker, but I have some doubts about its licensing.
The text of the license is pasted below. I see in the licensing guidelines
that "distributable" is not accepted, instead "Freely redistributable
without restriction" must be used, but there are some conditions.
Is this kind of license allowed?
Copyright (c) 2002-2010 gogo6
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 gogo6 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.
11 years, 9 months
Open Cascade Public License
During a discussion on the webbernets I informed someone that we had
labeled the OCPL non-free, as the wiki page states if i am not mistaken.
Then a gentleman replied to us with this link http://ur1.ca/50y00
claiming that it was no longer considered non-free by Debian. I was
wondering if the wiki page needed updating in regards to this license
and if it does not what is still wrong with it.
here is the conversation thread
11 years, 9 months