legal November 2012

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

16 participants
15 discussions

Code licensed under CC-BY
by Mikolaj Izdebski 14 Nov '12

14 Nov '12

Hello, Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) is approved for use in Fedora, but as a documentation license. Can software code licensed under CC-BY be included in Fedora? Thank you, Mikolaj Izdebski

2 1

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] 'New' licenses
by Tom Callaway 13 Nov '12

13 Nov '12

On 11/13/2012 06:07 AM, Jaromir Capik wrote: > We've been told, that Fedora and RHEL RPMs differ > in the licensing so that RHEL RPM specs should have > listed licenses for binary and source packages, whilst > the Fedora RPM specs should have listed licenses for > binary packages only. > > Is that right? > > In fact we're redistributing the sources in form of SRPMs > and that's why I see this only as a matter > of our choice/policy/approach. > > Please, let me know if you could send us any statement > about that, since we're already getting quite confused. I can't comment on RHEL policies, but I do not believe there is a way to indicate the License tag for a SRPM in a way that is different from the binary RPMs (whereas, it is possible to indicate a different License tag for each binary subpackage). I do not see the value in listing the licenses for source files which are not in the binary RPMs. If RPM supported a "SRPMLicense" field, then we could be more complete there, but right now, it does not (AFAIK). ~tom == Fedora Project

2 1

12 Nov '12

Just need some clarification in human language since I'm seeing more and more stuff being copyrighted in our infrastructure, the footer on http://paste.stg.fedoraproject.org which does not have a content clause if I would paste into it would then Sayak Banerjee, 2012 Red Hat, Inc. and others own what I pasted? JBG

4 3

Fwd: Re: [Scratch] scratch gpl licensing -- combining with apache, and gpl v3
by Matthew Miller 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

----- Forwarded message from Amos Blanton <amos(a)scratch.mit.edu> ----- > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 14:43:47 -0500 > From: Amos Blanton <amos(a)scratch.mit.edu> > To: Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> > Subject: Re: [Scratch] scratch gpl licensing -- combining with apache, and > gpl v3 > > Thanks for writing about this. These licensing issues are really > unfortunate, because they take so much time and energy to resolve. > > We first looked at re-releasing under the GPL v3, but the MIT Technology > Licensing Office doesn't allow the use of the GPL v3 because of patent > clauses they cannot accept. > > However, we've since spoken with an intellectual property lawyer about > this, and their interpretation is that the Scratch image is an aggregation > of the Squeak interpreter's virtual machine, under the Squeak license, and > Scratch, a separate work that requires the Squeak virtual machine. So the > license status of the two works is independent: the Squeak license for the > VM, and Scratch under GPL v2. > > Sincerely, > Amos > > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 10:09:37AM -0400, Amos Blanton wrote: > > > Thanks for your efforts getting Scratch into Fedora. > > > We're looking into this and hope to get back to you soon. > > > > Hi Amos. Not to harass, because I know these things take time, but I wonder > > if you have an update? Thanks! > > > > -- > > Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/> > > ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>

3 9

Opinion request for the Sequence Library license
by Ismael Olea 05 Nov '12

05 Nov '12

Hi: I'm ready to submit a new package for sequence-library. In the past the source code of this library has been included with the svnkit ones by svnkit upstream. A new release of svnkit use it now as an external jar library. The license seems to be an ad-hoc one in BSD style and it's not in the current list at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License… So I'm here asking about your consideration about this. Text is available in the current upstream site: http://svn.svnkit.com/repos/3rdparty/de.regnis.q.sequence/tags/1.0.2/LICENS… Thanks for in advance. -- Ismael Olea http://olea.org/diario/

2 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal November 2012