legal February 2013

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

13 participants
11 discussions

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CAcert.org license
by Tom Callaway 12 Feb '16

12 Feb '16

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

4 6

winetricks
by T.C. Hollingsworth 01 Aug '15

01 Aug '15

winetricks [1] is free software, but I was originally under the impression that it was ineligible for inclusion in Fedora because it is used primarily to download and install non-free software. (That is not it's only function, though--it also does some registry hacks and can manage multiple WINEPREFIXes.) However, some members of the community disagree [2] and say that it might be eligible for Fedora, so we'd like confirmation one way or the other. Thanks! -T.C. [1] http://winetricks.org/ [2] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992#c40

5 7

python-requests relicensing question
by Ralph Bean 25 Feb '13

25 Feb '13

python-requests has a license change at version 1.0.0. We currently have the old version packaged, licensed ISC. The new version is licensed Apache2. https://github.com/kennethreitz/requests/commit/5c1bc201c46297d39d591e5d30e… We've been hesitating about whether or not to update because we're not sure what impact the license change will have on dependant packages/applications. For instance, a hypothetical GPLv2 python program may currently be importing python-requests for use at runtime. If we updated python-requests (from ISC to Apache2), would we be throwing that program into a license violation? Should we go ahead and update? Do we need to take any special precautions?

2 1

Mesa 9.1 legal status
by Michael Cronenworth 17 Feb '13

17 Feb '13

Hi, It is my understanding that Mesa supports certain "floating point" features that are currently disabled in Fedora builds. With Mesa 9.1, Intel has now enabled these features by default. I notice the Fedora Mesa 9.1 build still disables this support. Is floating point support still not shippable? Thanks, Michael

1 0

Another Aladdin License
by Peter Lemenkov 15 Feb '13

15 Feb '13

Hello All! I'm dealing with the code which is licensed under the following terms: ================================= /* Copyright (C) 1999, 2000, 2002 Aladdin Enterprises. All rights reserved. This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software. Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required. 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution. L. Peter Deutsch ghost(a)aladdin.com */ ================================= I've got two questions: * Is this license OK for Fedora? * If yes, can it be used in GPLv2+ licensed application? -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.

2 1

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Distribution of IETF MIB files
by Jan Safranek 15 Feb '13

15 Feb '13

On 02/11/2013 01:10 PM, mejiko wrote: > 2013-02-11 (Monday) 10:52 +0100 Jan Safranek wrote: > >> Now, can Fedora ship these files? IMHO yes, reading RFC 5377, chap. 4.3, >> it's IETF's intention to allow such extraction, modification and >> distribution. But I am not a lawyer. >> >> The MIB files are considered Code Components as defined at >> http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/ and its license is (probably) >> defined at http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf > > I viewed this license page. > > MIBs code licensed under BSD (3 cause) License. > Its free (BSD license is "Good" license, See Reference). > Its no license problem. > > but RFC document license is freely redistributable, but do not allow > modify. RFC document is not code, Its document (not content). In section 4.1 are MIB files inside RFCs defined as "code components". And in 4.2, BSD is applied to these code components, i.e. MIB files in the RFC texts as BSD licensed. Therefore we may distribute these code components, i.e. MIB files, as separate files and even modify them if we want (and we do, because there are typos in the MIB files). IMHO while the RFC document is non-free (cannot be modified), the MIB files inside are free (and can be modified and distributed separately). Jan

2 2

use of trademark'd names in pkg summary/description/.desktop-files?
by Rex Dieter 13 Feb '13

13 Feb '13

Is the use of trademarked terms acceptable in a package Summary, %description, or in it's .desktop files? A concreate example are games, is it acceptable for game "foo" to say it's a clone of popular (trademarked) game "bar"? Any guideline or advice to follow? (my quick searching and googling failed me) -- Rex

2 2

Distribution of IETF MIB files
by Jan Safranek 11 Feb '13

11 Feb '13

Hello, I've got bugs #901504 and #901505 stating that Fedora should not distribute MIB files generated from IETF RFCs. Some RFC, e.g. 4293 [1], contains MIB files as part of the RFC text. 1: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4293 Net-SNMP and libsmi upstream tarball already contains these MIB files extracted from the RFCs. The 'extraction' is just copy of part of the RFC with removed page headers / footers. Now, can Fedora ship these files? IMHO yes, reading RFC 5377, chap. 4.3, it's IETF's intention to allow such extraction, modification and distribution. But I am not a lawyer. The MIB files are considered Code Components as defined at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/ and its license is (probably) defined at http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf Removing the MIB files from the packages would be very tedious, annoying and IMHO useless. Jan

1 0

mumps and metis licenses
by Antonio Trande 07 Feb '13

07 Feb '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all. I make a speech again about a couple of license issues. In past, both questions have been discussed in two different package-reviews: 1- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566750 2- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=715314 Currently, I have opened a new package review request (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908089) of Ipopt which considers both Mumps and Metis employment. Politely, Paulo shows me that these license types have already been evaluated some months ago. In particular, I wish to point out: - - Mumps is released without any copyright or license rescriction but as 'public domain': http://mumps.enseeiht.fr/index.php?page=credits - - Metis seems "can be used for non-commercial projects without any restrictions. For commercial-use, the essential restriction is for the vendors not to be reselling Metis". https://projects.coin-or.org/BuildTools/browser/ThirdParty/Metis/trunk/INST… http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/metis/metis/faq?q=metis/metis/faq#distribu… Should I consider these licenses incompatible with Fedora policies definitively ? Regards - -- Antonio Trande "Fedora Ambassador" "Fedora italian translation group" "Blogger" mail: mailto:sagitter@fedoraproject.org Homepage: http://www.fedora-os.org Sip Address : sip:sagitter AT ekiga.net Jabber :sagitter AT jabber.org GPG Key: D400D6C4 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRE5P9AAoJED2vIvfUANbEOUsQAL+k2glguTML70PplD3ZB3ob v63QmZLKFlMC+DaIZtKXPT/HaPQbMciPN6m37jTU9xzJzTeLY8wkLPEC4UUglwO5 xlDbWSRweljr8Z4zWTxixOLL1/6VZRQJb6YmGrdWxyeYkVE75yfyQ31hEEK6DGQu uGr9QkKvGgciKeP86HGvCDPMUPLF1VTCKKgCkVL3LHTQBMU0EDenMqkgxTRJZjCL EUf0D6teilKnIKaV1Rs71qt7lkgjAc4KjxX3JqrKfpAFd/89qLyiA+BXPzWss/pu WZwPLdDU6wM8Ip8UtSjkZmMEyA7kXj/WRNrrBBADTEmWemX56zJIvY+mcLZC8mRR hyO0k03jydi70CsFegkuzNa1jMVJNI32JQvMWd34vwlf625klORBh4H+Bdrt8oq5 yBFqszN6Wu33bAHJFP8MSKt1gCCZDU1NNPTW25F0DV9xKqxojflTchmkYxzBc7m1 gKM5C32uDqrt7WGbKUvhQd/wwes4IJOR7W5tusoDF0emP1cPmkZNQuwYTygkx8Zi daQYT7ugAo1EAKNEo1hXNwrl+fIIGVCQhHY0QTcwv3dzTC3dW584OEM6JhMNQwF2 CrsgF8ZAfOSO5RninArbRatTUna9ME9Ep5o9kIgNP/ei2IaTe0hX1MrchRI+obiy 7itr3PZJ3sU/ATyucS+s =frlK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

What license should I use for javax.el-api
by David Xie 06 Feb '13

06 Feb '13

Dear all, I am making a RPM package for javax.el-api, however I am not sure which license should I use for it. From page http://uel.java.net/, it claims it uses license CDDL and GPLv2. Should I add ASL 2.0 for it? Now I am using "(CDDL or GPLv2) and ASL 2.0". ---- Best Regards, David Xie (谢凌) Founder of ScriptFan Technology Community Manager of Xi'an GDG (Google Developer Group) http://about.me/davidx

5 9

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal February 2013