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. :)
In your list you have posted that the following are all FSF Free? either YES or NO.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives 3.0
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No Derivatives 3.0
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0
Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
Can I assume that this also means that the previous versions (1, 2, 2.5) of each of the licenses are also FSF Free? either YES or NO.
For example can I assume that FSF Free? YES for versions 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0
Creative Commons Attribution license
and then assume that FSF Free? NO for versions 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 of:
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
Marcus Lucero | Data Library Engineer | Palamida, Inc.
215 Second Street, 2nd Fl | San Francisco, CA 94105
Direct dial: 1.415.777.9400 x155
email: mlucero(a)palamida.com<mailto:email@example.com> | http://www.palamida.com<http://www.palamida.com/blog>
So, in an effort to make releng/infra/mirrors happier, I was looking into
the possibility of packaging pregenerated content from http://api.kde.org/,
rather than respinning kdelibs-apidocs on every kdelibs pkg build.
So, here's my general take (please correct or confirm where appropriate):
* These -apidocs are generated via doxygen from lgpl sources, so, lgpl
applies to -apidocs
* what source code requirements are there? is the -apidocs 'preferred form'
of the source... the kdelibs source code? or is the pregenerated html docs
themselves good enough?
if we need matching kdelibs source code, then...
One issue raised is that api.kde.org generates their content daily from scm
branches, which likely doesn't match exactly the sources that we distribute
(say in our kdelibs.src.rpm's). In case we'd try to take scm source
snapshots to satisfy source requirements, it not clear (at the moment
anyway), which exactly branch/commits are used by upstream either.
So, how picky do we need to be, if at all, about satisfying lgpl source
requirements to pursue trying to package pregenerated lgpl documentation
from api.kde.org ?
I noticed that many wrappers over libmysqlclient are distributed under
BSD 3c (or alike):
* dolphin-connector: BSD 3c
* soci-mysql: Boost
* poco-mysql: Boost
Though, the FOSS exception applies, it may mislead users into
thinking that they can link proprietary softwares to these wrappers
though the FOSS exception states that all derivatives works should be
licensed under one of the approved licenses.
Should we request that the following packages changes their license
field into GPLv2 ? or at least state somewhere (description,
README.fedora ?) that any derivatives works are to be licensed under a
FOSS approved license ?
dt tool license is mit-like (see bellow)?
COPYRIGHT (c) 1990 - 2007
This Software Provided
Robin's Nest Software Inc.
Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell this software and
its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that
both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in the
supporting documentation, and that the name of the author not be used
in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software
without specific, written prior permission.
THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE,
INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN
NO EVENT SHALL HE BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR
PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS
ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF
" Original Author: William Norcott (wnorcott(a)us.oracle.com)",
" 4 Dunlap Drive",
" Nashua, NH 03060",
" Enhancements: Don Capps (capps(a)iozone.org)",
" 7417 Crenshaw",
" Plano, TX 75025",
" Copyright 1991, 1992, 1994, 1998, 1999, 2002 William D. Norcott",
" License to freely use and distribute this software is hereby granted
" by the author, subject to the condition that this copyright notice ",
" remains intact. The author retains the exclusive right to publish ",
" derivative works based on this work, including, but not limited to,
" revised versions of this work",
" Other contributors:",
" Don Capps (Network Appliance) capps(a)iozone.org",
it looks like MIT-like license, isn't it?
I would like to know if the following terms and conditions are
acceptable for a software (3D-ICE) released under the GPL license:
"IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Any usage of 3D-ICE for research, commercial
or other purposes must be properly acknowledged in the resulting
products or publications. Specifically, the publications 1 and 2 below
must be cited in all cases."
If not, what does upstream need to do? Please do let me know,