Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CAcert.org license
by Tom Callaway
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
7 years, 10 months
winetricks
by T.C. Hollingsworth
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
8 years, 4 months
Inconsistent licensing
by Orion Poplawski
I'm packaging StarCluster for Fedora
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949371) and I'm running
into some questions about the licensing.
README.rst and setup.py and PKG-INFO indicates LGPLv3
The only python files with a header indicate:
starcluster/progressbar.py: LGPL (v2.1 or later)
starcluster/sshutils/scp.py: LGPL (v2.1 or later)
And then of course there are the jquery bundled js libs, which are dual
MIT and GPLv2:
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.js: * Dual licensed under the MIT
or GPL Version 2 licenses.
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.js: * http://jquery.org/license
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.js: * Released under the MIT, BSD,
and GPL Licenses.
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.js: * Released under the MIT,
BSD, and GPL Licenses.
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.js: * Released under the MIT
license by IOLA, December 2007.
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.js: * Released under the MIT
license by Ole Laursen, October 2009.
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.navigate.js:Licensed under
the MIT License ~ http://threedubmedia.googlecode.com/files/MIT-LICENSE.txt
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.navigate.js: * Dual licensed
under the MIT (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php)
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.navigate.js: * and GPL
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php) licenses.
So, does:
LGPLv3 and (MIT or GPLv2)
cover it? I don't like that the (few) license headers don't match the
other license comments.
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
10 years, 6 months
Have a question about using Fedora14 for a university project and publishing the results
by Harikiran Enna
Hi Fedora Team,
I am a student studying Masters in Computer Science at one of the
universities in Minnesota, USA. As part of a starred paper for the
university, I wanted to perform some oracle database performance tests on
fedora operating system.
For this purpose, I have downloaded Fedora 14 (free software from web ) and
installed my Oracle Database software for performing some performance
tests. I have included my test results in my paper with mention of using
Fedora 14 operating system. My university may decide to publish the paper
and I would like to make sure that my university publishing my paper would
not conflict with Fedora 14 license agreement.
I have the following information in my system when I do "uname -a".
Linux hari 2.6.35.6-45.fc14.i686 #1 SMP Mon Oct 18 23:56:17 UTC 2010 i686
i686 i386 GNU/Linux
your suggestions would be a great help.
Thanks,
Hari
612 876 5992
--
*The Greatest Success We'll Know Is Helping Others Succeed and
Grow*.--* Gregory
Scott Reid *
10 years, 7 months
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] License clarification for xvt
by Mamoru TASAKA
Hello:
> On 05/04/2013 10:22 AM, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
> > Hello:
> >
> > On the review request for xfe:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150
> > a question was raised on the license of xvt/xvt.c in
> > xfe-1.34.tar.gz, which says:
> >
> > /* Copyright 1992, 1994 John Bovey, University of Kent at Canterbury.
> > *
> > * Redistribution and use in source code and/or executable forms, with
> > * or without modification, are permitted provided that the following
> > * condition is met:
> > *
> > * Any redistribution must retain the above copyright notice, this
> > * condition and the following disclaimer, either as part of the
> > * program source code included in the redistribution or in human-
> > * readable materials provided with the redistribution.
> > *
> > * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS". Any express or implied
> > * warranties concerning this software are disclaimed by the copyright
> > * holder to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. In no
> > * event shall the copyright-holder be liable for any damages of any
> > * kind, however caused and on any theory of liability, arising in any
> > * way out of the use of, or inability to use, this software.
> > *
> > * -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *
> > * In other words, do not misrepresent my work as your own work, and
> > * do not sue me if it causes problems. Feel free to do anything else
> > * you wish with it.
> > */
> >
> > I think this can be MIT, however I would appreciate if someone would check
> > the license above.
>
> It is BSD. I've added it to the variant list.
>
> ~tom
Thank you for clarification, spot.
Regards,
Mamoru
10 years, 7 months
