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
The guidelines for the supplemental wallpaper submissions state that
you need permission from the author to submit the file. Does anyone know
the reasoning for this? Does it also apply to images that are in the
I ask because there are many many awesome images in places like the NASA
image library that are public domain. These would be nice to source and
include in the submissions. Do I need to contact NASA to see if their
public domain images are okay for use as a Fedora wallpaper?
Same question if i source an image that is already licensed CC-BY-SA. Do
i need to contact the artist directly? or does the their choice of
licence imply permission for use (and consequently for me to submit).
I am updating perl-Encode. The following license was added into several
Is it UCD license?
# Copyright (c) 1991-2011 Unicode, Inc. All Rights reserved.
# This file is provided as-is by Unicode, Inc. (The Unicode Consortium). No
# claims are made as to fitness for any particular purpose. No
# any kind are expressed or implied. The recipient agrees to determine
# applicability of information provided. If this file has been provided on
# magnetic media by Unicode, Inc., the sole remedy for any claim will be
# exchange of defective media within 90 days of receipt.
# Unicode, Inc. hereby grants the right to freely use the information
# supplied in this file in the creation of products supporting the
# Unicode Standard, and to make copies of this file in any form for
# internal or external distribution as long as this notice remains
The files with the license are part of source rpm, but they are not
included in binary rpm.
Should be the license mention in License: tag in this case?
Few months ago, I've taken this picture  and attended with it in the
contest of F19 Supplemental Wallpapers . I've released that image
under the terms of CC BY 3.0 license  (clearly stated at ).
When F19 was released and I saw the DVDs, I saw my picture at the back
side of the DVD cover. Without any attribution. I said to myself, let it be.
Later on, I saw my picture on Flock badges. Without attribution.
It's also on (the mockup of ?) Fedora Magazine front page , again, I
see no attribution.
Just to be clear, I'm not mad or something like that, I'm just curious.
In my eyes, Fedora was always very strict about licenses and stuff like
If anyone would come to me and say "Hey, Miro, we want to use that image
in XYZ, but your attribution would make it look weird, can we use it to
promote Fedora, without your attribution?" I would definitely say yes.
But nobody had done this before the image was used.
So I would like to know: Signing CLA, did I abandoned my right to use
license with attribution? Or someone screwed it?
I've blocked FE-Legal on my review request for python-backports:
It's a namespace package in Python that we're pulling the code out of
from python-backports-ssl_match_hostname. The two lines of code are:
from pkgutil import extend_path
__path__ = extend_path(__path__, __name__)
As far as I can tell, the code is derived from PEP 382 , which is
Can somebody double check that Public Domain is the correct license for
Ian Weller <ian(a)ianweller.org>
Because Linux world has a lack of CJK fonts, a famous company in China
has released 4 free fonts for people for a long time.
Unfortunately, I'm not a lawyer, and these fonts are not licensed
under OFL or other licenses, so I inquired an English license file and
pasted it to:
I hope some guys can help me.
Always playing in Fedora Project