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. :)
winetricks  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  and say that it
might be eligible for Fedora, so we'd like confirmation one way or the
I'm currently working with a own WordPress blog and have to find out, that the
WordPress plugin is only free for personal use.
In the readme.txt file you find the folllowing inforatioons:
License: GPLv2 or later
PS: You'll need an [Akismet.com API key](http://akismet.com/get/) to use it. Keys are free for personal blogs, with paid subscriptions available for businesses and commercial sites.
The above cited sentence told be, that commercial sites have to pay
a fee, if they wnat to use that plugin.
Becuase this violate the Fedora policy, I would like your mind
about this situation.
I would like to package some additional catalogs for Skychart, but I
have some questions regarding license.
As you can see on skychart download page , each package has more than
one catalog inside. All of these catalogs are known to be public domain,
but there's no license file specified either in catalogs or on original
websites of the catalogs  . Moreover, original catalog data is
reworked by skychart's developer to fit the main program, so the result
only work in skychart.
My question is: can additional catalogs subpackages be the case stated
where it's not necessary to include own license? Or should I contact all
makers of the source data from wich these catalogs are built and ask
them the licenses?
I'm reviewing bijiben:
Pierre-Yves is both the submitter of the package as well as the upstream
The review is in a state where I think the package can be approved,
except for the license.
I'm having doubts about the value of the license tag, but that's mostly
because it's slightly more complicated than what I've dealt with until
I've looked at all the source files, and the result appears to me to be:
GPLv3+ and (LGPLv2 or LGPLv3) and LGPLv2+
- The LGPLv2+ files are libgd, which is (by design) bundled into
- The "LGPLv2 or LGPLv3" files come from Evolution
- The GPLv3+ is most of the software, it is the source code for bijiben
Pierre-Yves simplified that to:
GPLv3+ and LGPLv3 and LGPLv2+
Which I don't think is a problem.
Could anyone have a look and confirm that the License tag is correct?
I'm sure I'm being overly worried for no reason and it's a very simple
case, but as I said, I've never reviewed a package with so many licenses