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. :)
What is the current situation with MP3 allowance in Fedora? I thought
2012 was the year when we could -at least- have not-patent-encumbered,
free MP3 _decoding_. Can you please update us on the latest status?
We would like to package for fedora the Data Ware House component of
oVirt, which contains parts generated using Talend Open Studio (see ).
This tool allows the user to define graphically some data flows and
transformations and then generates Java code. The generated Java code
states in the header that the license is LGPL and the tool itself claims
to be open source using GPL v2 (see ).
Is it acceptable from the legal point of view to create a Fedora package
using the generated Java code as the source?
Thanks in advance,
As part of the statistics++ project  it is Infrastructure's plan to
make data about visits to Fedora Project web servers public, in order to
automate the information made available on the Statistics wiki page.
The httpd logs currently contain personally-identifiable information:
the IP address the request originated from and the user agent header.
We think that at an absolute minimum we need to hash the IP address
(with a seed, obviously) and leave the user agent header as is. But we
wanted to make sure we got legal's opinion on this.
Ian Weller <ian(a)ianweller.org>
I have some concerns about the Clementine music player application as
packaged in Fedora. The concerns involve the Spotify integration feature.
The application uses Spotify's trademarks and their copyrighted logo and
suggests that the user pull in a proprietary application called "Spotify
Core" to use the feature. This effectively makes the feature a stub that
pulls in proprietary software.
I'm wondering if any of this is in violation of any Fedora packaging
guidelines for the issues I've raised.