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. :)
Re: Java3D package review,
If upstream removed the word license from the clause, such that it read:
You acknowledge that this software is not designed or intended
for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance
of any nuclear facility.
Would that be acceptable for inclusion in Fedora? Sun made that change
for JavaCC, so it seems possible that Oracle might be willing to do that
for Java3D, if they're not willing to drop the clause entirely.
Do you think public documentation sources from the Khronos group
need more vetting by legal? There is this "helpful" blurb about the
"There are a variety of licenses from SGI, 3Dlabs, Sams Publishing, and
the Khronos Group applied to different parts of the man pages. We think
they all boil down to "BSD style" licenses that should allow you to
modify and redistribute the man pages. However, this is not an official
legal opinion or committment from Khronos. You must make your own
judgements based on reading the licenses involved."
We've shipped gl-manpages (an old(2006) prebuild version of these man
pages) with mesa subpackages for a while (now a separate package in f18
and rawhide), but I'd like to move to building from the khronos source.
This potentially would include the OpenGL 4.x, 3.x and GLSL man pages
which I we've not distributed till now.
No response so far.
Perhaps someone here could provide some insight?
Thanks in advance,
----- Forwarded message from Petr Šabata <contyk(a)redhat.com> -----
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:21:55 +0200
From: Petr Šabata <contyk(a)redhat.com>
Subject: FCGI licence
I was just looking at our perl-FCGI package and noticed something
really weird in its source files, namely the following disclaimer
in os_unix.c and os_win32.c files:
This file contains proprietary and confidential
information and remains the unpublished property of
Open Market, Inc. Use, disclosure, or reproduction
is prohibited except as permitted by express written
license agreement with Open Market, Inc.
This is pretty ugly. Do we have such agreement?
I'd ask on the legal list directly but you might know something
more about this...
----- End forwarded message -----