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. :)
~spot
7 years, 7 months
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] License clarification dxflib
by Volker Fröhlich
Dear Andrew!
Thank you for your prompt response.
The problem is, the paragraph in question circumscribes the terms of the
GPL and it fails to do it properly. That's what's causing the problem.
Besides that, the term "Open Source Edition" is not clarified, as far as
I could see.
If the license stated in this file does not apply, can you please remove
it from the tarball and just include a copy of the FSF license instead?
Regards,
Volker Fröhlich
On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 20:36 +0100, Andrew Mustun wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The dxflib Open Source Edition is licensed under the terms of the
> GPL v2 without anything to add or remove from that.
>
> The paragraph below is meant to clarify what GPL / Open Source
> means. If your application is released under the GPL v2, the
> commercial license contained in file dxflib_commercial_license.txt
> simply does not apply at all for you.
>
> Regards,
> Andrew Mustun
>
> On 10/31/12 8:24 PM, Volker Froehlich wrote:
> > Dear RibbonSoft!
> >
> > I'm a packager with the Fedora GNU/Linux distribution. I'm packaging
> > SAGA GIS (https://sourceforge.net/projects/saga-gis/), which uses
> > dxflib.
> >
> > I read that the "Open Source Edition" of dxflib was licensed under the
> > terms of GPL version 2. While this is clearly stated in the headers of
> > the source code, the file dxflib_commercial_license.txt causes us
> > headache.
> >
> > """
> > NOTE: dxflib Open Source Edition is licensed under the terms of the
> > GPL and not under this Agreement. If Licensee has, at any time,
> > developed all (or any portions of) the Application(s) using RibbonSoft's
> > publicly licensed dxflib Open Source Edition, Licensee must comply
> > with RibbonSoft's requirements and license such Application(s)
> > (or any portions derived there from) under the terms of the Free
> > Software Foundation's GNU General Public License version 2 (the "GPL") a
> > copy of which is located at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC1
> > (i.e., any Product(s) and/or parts, components, portions thereof
> > developed using GPL licensed software, including dxflib Open Source
> > Edition, must be licensed under the terms of the GPL, and the GPL-based
> > source code must be made available upon request).
> > """
> >
> > Tom Callaway of Red Hat found this statement was not in line with the
> > GPL and therefore non-free:
> >
> > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-October/001734.html
> >
> > It'd be great if we could work this out together. A clear license
> > situation would allow to include dxflib in Fedora and other
> > distributions that care about software freedom.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Volker Fröhlich
> >
> >
>
10 years, 10 months
Question about License field
by Luis Villa
Quick Q about the license field in a Fedora-produced RPM:
What does "/" mean in the License field? i.e., does:
GPL/LGPL
mean disjunctive dual-license (i.e., recipient can choose which terms
to comply with)? mixed-license (e.g., libraries LGPL, utilities GPL)?
Or is there no way to know merely from the License field?
[In the particular example I was looking at, it means the latter, but
I guess I'm wondering if that is consistent/reliable or more a fluke.]
Thanks-
Luis
10 years, 11 months
License clarification dxflib
by Volker Fröhlich
Dear RibbonSoft!
I'm a packager with the Fedora GNU/Linux distribution. I'm packaging
SAGA GIS (https://sourceforge.net/projects/saga-gis/), which uses
dxflib.
I read that the "Open Source Edition" of dxflib was licensed under the
terms of GPL version 2. While this is clearly stated in the headers of
the source code, the file dxflib_commercial_license.txt causes us
headache.
"""
NOTE: dxflib Open Source Edition is licensed under the terms of the
GPL and not under this Agreement. If Licensee has, at any time,
developed all (or any portions of) the Application(s) using RibbonSoft's
publicly licensed dxflib Open Source Edition, Licensee must comply
with RibbonSoft's requirements and license such Application(s)
(or any portions derived there from) under the terms of the Free
Software Foundation's GNU General Public License version 2 (the "GPL") a
copy of which is located at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC1
(i.e., any Product(s) and/or parts, components, portions thereof
developed using GPL licensed software, including dxflib Open Source
Edition, must be licensed under the terms of the GPL, and the GPL-based
source code must be made available upon request).
"""
Tom Callaway of Red Hat found this statement was not in line with the
GPL and therefore non-free:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-October/001734.html
It'd be great if we could work this out together. A clear license
situation would allow to include dxflib in Fedora and other
distributions that care about software freedom.
Sincerely,
Volker Fröhlich
10 years, 11 months
AFM parser license
by Marek Kasik
Hi,
I'm doing a license review of some packages which I maintain in Fedora.
I've found 2 files which are under a license which I can not find among
those on "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing".
The license is used in these files:
http://git.gnome.org/browse/evince/tree/backend/dvi/mdvi-lib/afmparse.c
http://git.gnome.org/browse/evince/tree/backend/dvi/mdvi-lib/afmparse.h
The license itself is:
/*
* (C) 1988, 1989 by Adobe Systems Incorporated. All rights reserved.
*
* This file may be freely copied and redistributed as long as:
* 1) This entire notice continues to be included in the file,
* 2) If the file has been modified in any way, a notice of such
* modification is conspicuously indicated.
*
* PostScript, Display PostScript, and Adobe are registered trademarks of
* Adobe Systems Incorporated.
*
* ************************************************************************
* THE INFORMATION BELOW IS FURNISHED AS IS, IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT
* NOTICE, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A COMMITMENT BY ADOBE SYSTEMS
* INCORPORATED. ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY OR
* LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR INACCURACIES, MAKES NO WARRANTY OF ANY
* KIND (EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY) WITH RESPECT TO THIS INFORMATION,
* AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
* FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSES AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY
RIGHTS.
* ************************************************************************
*/
I found that on page
"http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/ApacheMigration/Permissive" is written
that it should be compatible with ASL license but I'm not sure about this.
Could you help me with finding a compatible license from the list on
"https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing" ?
Regards
Marek
10 years, 11 months
Overall license and Creative Commons
by Volker Fröhlich
Dear list readers!
The artwork of the game "flare" is licensed under the terms of CC-BY-SA
3.0 or later. That's at least what the header says on
https://github.com/clintbellanger/flare-game/wiki/Credits
Scrolling down to the details, you find various licenses stated:
- CC-BY-SA 3.0
- CC-BY 3.0
- CC-BY 2.0
- Public Domain
- Public Domain, CC0
I wonder if the above license claim is correct.
http://wiki-staging.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#If_I_c...
"Note that when you include a Creative Commons licensed work in a
collection, you cannot change the license applicable to the original
work itself."
I assume all the artwork together could be called a "collection". Saying
"this is all CC-BY-SA 3.0" sounds like changing the license of the
original work, since these are no derivates, as far as I understand.
Looking forward to your comments,
Volker Fröhlich
10 years, 11 months
