July 2013 - legal - Fedora Mailing-Lists

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, 3 months

4
6
0 / 0

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

7 years, 10 months

5
7
0 / 0

npm license change

by T.C. Hollingsworth

npm, the Node.js package manager, has changed license [1] from a modified version of the MIT [2] to the Artistic 2.0 [3] license effective with version 1.3.6. This version is now in Rawhide and queued for updates-testing in Fedora 19 and 18 as well as EPEL 6. Fedora Legal believes both licenses to be GPL-compatible so this shouldn't cause anyone trouble. On the contrary, using a standard license instead of a custom-written one should only make peoples' lives easier. ;-) -T.C. [1] https://github.com/isaacs/npm/commit/c32391b1efd70a861cebc77e0cc784a46af5... [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MITNFA [3] http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0

9 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

Use license of another project, even, when it's changed

by Miro Hrončok

Hi, I would like to release my code under the following terms. Could you please tell, whether the statement is clear? ========== Anyone can use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee under the same terms as the rpmlint project [0], provided that rpmlint license stays both GPL compatible [1] and OSI approved [2]. [0] https://sourceforge.net/projects/rpmlint/ [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ========== Thanks -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

9 years, 10 months

3
5
0 / 0

License tag for single binary built from multiple sources under different licenses

by Eric Smith

Originally I thought I understood the multiple license stuff in the packaging guidelines, but it's become apparent that it's not understood by some people, or maybe just me. If an executable is build from sources with a mix of GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT, does the License tag need to include all three, or just GPLv2+? Examples, package reviews for psi4 and 64tass: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951582 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973448 Thanks! Eric

9 years, 10 months

2
2
0 / 0

non-free licence? (Richardson laboratory software)

by Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski

Hello, I'm considering packaging reduce from here: http://kinemage.biochem.duke.edu/software/reduce.php However, the licence seems to be non-free, despite saying "This is free software": http://kinemage.biochem.duke.edu/software/index.php [...] // NOTICE: This is free software and the source code is freely // available. You are free to redistribute or modify under the // conditions that (1) this notice is not removed or modified // in any way and (2) any modified versions of the program are // also available for free. // ** Absolutely no Warranty ** Am I correct? Regards, Dominik -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

9 years, 10 months

2
2
0 / 0

Poster Competition on Women's and LGBT Issues

by inode0

There recently was this "event" which claims to be a Fedora supported event. http://www.wfs-india.org/p/poster-competition-womens-and-lgbt-issues I can't find anything in the trademark guidelines that allow the use of any Fedora trademarks or the claim of support from the Fedora Project without written permission for an event such as this. I might be missing something but since more such "events" seem to be anticipated I would like to get a clarification about where things like this fall in the trademark guidelines. Since this sort of event is clearly not remotely like those described in the waiver granted to ambassadors for promotional events https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Promotional_events is there any other place in this document that allows ambassadors (or anyone else) to do this without permission? Thanks, John

9 years, 11 months

3
2
0 / 0

Request for accepting LGPLv2 exceptions

by Erik Schilling

Hello, I want to package QBS (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979124). QBS uses the standard QT LGPL exceptions. The exception file is identical with the ones from qt-creator or qt (or any other qt package). So can i use "License: LGPLv2 with exceptions" for qbs? I attached the exception file in case it needs further review. Regards, Erik

9 years, 11 months

2
2
0 / 0

BerkeleyDB 6.0 relicense

by Michel Alexandre Salim

BerkeleyDB has recently been relicensed by Oracle (to AGPLv3) -- Debian discussion as covered by LWN here: http://lwn.net/Articles/557487/ <http://lwn.net/Articles/557487/#Comments> Given that the older 5.x version is used by multiple packages (most notably RPM), not all of which are AGPLv3-compatible, perhaps we need to discuss the implications of this re-license? 1. Fork BDB 5.x 2. Audit the dependents to see which have incompatible licenses (off the top of my head, GPLv2-only, GPLv3, GPLv3+ -- GPLv2+ will simply become AGPLv3) 3. ... ? Here are the packages we currently have that build against libdb-devel: 389-ds-base-0:1.3.1.2-1.fc19.src apr-util-0:1.4.1-8.fc19.src clisp-0:2.49-9.20130208hg.fc19.src compat-libgda-0:3.1.2-10.fc19.src cyrus-imapd-0:2.4.17-2.fc19.src cyrus-sasl-0:2.1.26-8.fc19.src cyrus-sasl-0:2.1.26-9.fc19.src dsniff-0:2.4-0.15.b1.fc19.src evolution-data-server-0:3.8.3-1.fc19.src exim-0:4.80.1-3.fc19.src hail-0:0.8-0.13.gf9c5b967.fc19.src iproute-0:3.9.0-1.fc19.src isync-0:1.0.6-1.fc19.src jigdo-0:0.7.3-17.fc19.src libetpan-0:1.1-5.fc19.src libgda-1:5.1.2-2.fc19.src libpinyin-0:0.9.92-1.fc19.src libpinyin-0:0.9.93-1.fc19.src libsolv-0:0.3.0-3.git7399ad1.fc19.src libsolv-0:0.3.0-5.git228d412.fc19.src nmh-0:1.5-4.fc19.src nss_updatedb-0:10-6.fc19.src nvi-0:1.81.6-7.fc19.src opendkim-0:2.8.3-2.fc19.src openldap-0:2.4.35-4.fc19.src openldap-0:2.4.35-5.fc19.src openser-0:1.3.4-28.fc19.src opensips-0:1.8.2-6.fc19.src pam-0:1.1.6-11.fc19.1.src pam_abl-0:0.5.0-2.fc19.src pam_ccreds-0:10-7.fc19.src perl-4:5.16.3-264.fc19.src perl-4:5.16.3-265.fc19.src perl-BDB-0:1.90-4.fc19.src perl-BerkeleyDB-0:0.51-4.fc19.src perl-Digest-MD4-0:1.9-1.fc19.src perl-Qt-0:0.96.0-6.fc19.src perl-eperl-0:2.2.14-23.fc19.src php-0:5.5.0-0.10.RC3.fc19.src php-0:5.5.0-1.fc19.src postfix-2:2.10.0-2.fc19.src postfix-2:2.10.1-1.fc19.src postler-0:0.1.1-12.fc19.src python-0:2.7.5-1.fc19.src qpid-cpp-0:0.20-6.fc19.src qpid-cpp-0:0.22-1.1.fc19.src qpid-cpp-0:0.22-2.fc19.src redland-0:1.0.16-2.fc19.src rpm-0:4.11.0.1-2.fc19.src ruby-0:2.0.0.195-8.fc19.src ruby-0:2.0.0.247-11.fc19.src sendmail-0:8.14.7-1.fc19.src sks-0:1.1.4-1.fc19.src spamprobe-0:1.4d-4.fc19.src squidGuard-0:1.4-17.fc19.src subversion-0:1.7.10-1.fc19.src tabled-0:0.5.2-2.fc19.src webalizer-0:2.23_05-7.fc19.src xemacs-0:21.5.33-5.fc19.src zinnia-0:0.06-16.fc19.src Best regards, -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/ Email: salimma(a)fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

9 years, 11 months

3
3
0 / 0

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal July 2013