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
What's Fedora's stance on linking GPL-only libraries into the same
process as a library which is considered GPL-incompatible (such as
4-clause BSD) if this linking happens rather indirectly?
We currently link psql against both libreadline and libcrypto/libssl
(OpenSSL), so if that is okay, more indirect linking should be
acceptable as well.
However, I'm not sure I'd appreciate that if I were a GPL-only library
author who chose that license deliberately (perhaps even with a desire
to sell alternative licensing), and some intermediate libraries makes my
work available under a more permissive license, only wrapped in a
different programming interface.
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
in our open-source project Foreman we use various Linux distro icons,
Now, we have a patch from our community which adds support for IBM AIX
UNIX and it was coming with logo created from the official graphics:
(This is just a random copy returned by Google)
We have removed that from the patch and accepted it without the provided
logo for now, it was apparently resampled (smaller) version of the
official IBM logo.
Now, there is quite strict trademark policy by IBM which explicitly
disallows the use of their logos:
On the other hand, they allow "fair use" to some degree, which is not
explicitly specified in that document. Can be icon of that (small) size
considered as "fair use"?
It is legal to draw similar logo in GIMP (blue circle, green filling
with "AIX" in white) and then scale that down to size of an icon and use
that in our software?
If not, do we have any other options? I guess the second option could be
to create similar logo which would be different from the one presented
(different colors, font maybe). What kind of changes is considered as
To be clear, Foreman is not yet in Fedora, but we are planning to
include it as all our dependencies get accepted. It's a long process, we
provide Fedora repositories with our software for now.
Thanks for help and happy New Year all!
Lukas "lzap" Zapletal
irc: lzap #theforeman
I'd like to sponsor a new packager (CC'd) and help him get
his project  into Fedora. He happens to be a Sudanese.
As Sudan appears to be a sanctioned country, I'd like to check
whether this is legally alright.
Thank you in advance,
I'm doing a review of Apache UIMAJ, which is licensed under ASL 2.0.
But there is a NOTICE file, which says:
Copyright 2006 The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
Portions of UIMA were originally developed by
International Business Machines Corporation and are
licensed to the Apache Software Foundation under the
"Software Grant License Agreement", informally known as the
"IBM UIMA License Agreement".
Copyright (c) 2003, 2006 IBM Corporation.
What does it mean in context of Fedora packaging? Can it be included in Fedora?
Should the License tag reflect that somehow?
The review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005782
I've been looking at shipping the DITA (Darwin Information Typing
Architecture) XML schema, but noticed a copyright notice on the XML
catalog file at
http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.2/os/dtd1.2/catalog-dita.xml that reads:
<!-- (C) Copyright OASIS Open 2005, 2009. -->
<!-- (C) Copyright IBM Corporation 2001, 2004. -->
<!-- All Rights Reserved. -->
which seems to preclude redistribution
When I asked the DITA technical committee about this, the chair directed
me to the notices here:
state in part:
"This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or
assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published, and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this section are included
on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself
may not be modified in any way, including by removing the copyright
notice or references to OASIS, except as needed for the purpose of
developing any document or deliverable produced by an OASIS Technical
Committee (in which case the rules applicable to copyrights, as set
forth in the OASIS IPR Policy, must be followed) or as required to
translate it into languages other than English."
and asked me to include that notice with any distribution of DITA.
Is this OK to ship? Is this license properly described as "Copyright Only"?
The Fedora cloud SIG has setup an organization called 'fedora-cloud' on
GitHub for mirroring some dist-git repos in the hopes of getting more
contributions. The question was asked on the cloud list (cc'ed) about
whether we need to get usage approval for the Fedora name to use it in
the organization name. fedora-infra has their own GitHub organization so
there is at least some precedence here.
Do we need to get board approval for usage of 'fedora' in our GitHub org?
Thanks for your help.
Nmap license is listed as a combination of GPL, LGPL and BSD in the Fedora
package however the COPYING file has very specific interpretations and
exceptions to GPL. Is this still considered plain GPL?
Below is Tuomo's response regarding the Notion license in its entirety.
In short, he was not interested in modifying the terms of the license,
however, he did confirm that the Notion satisfies the terms of the
So, what's next? Is there anything I can do to help the process along?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Questions Regarding the Ion(tm) License
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 10:15:16 +0000
From: Tuomo Valkonen <tuomov(a)iki.fi>
To: Jeff Backus <jeff.backus(a)gmail.com>
> On 06 Dec 2013, at 12:44, Jeff Backus <jeff.backus(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Dr. Valkonen,
> I know you are very busy, so I will be brief.
> I am writing to you on behalf of the Notion project, which is a fork of Ion3(tm) created in 2010. Since you have obviously moved onto bigger and better things and Ion3(tm) has not been active since 2009, we feel that the additional clauses added to the LGPL 2.1 license are no longer necessary to avoid confusion with regard to supporting unofficial versions - particularly since you have officially stated that you no longer offer support of any version. Therefore we ask that you grant permission to the Notion project to distribute as part of the Notion project any and all Ion(tm)-related material, including but not limited to primary and ancillary code and documentation, under the terms of the official LGPL version 2.1 as specified at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html.
> If you are not interested in releasing Ion(tm) under the official LGPL, either through Notion or other means, would you please at least verify that the Notion name sufficiently satisfies the Ion3(tm) license?
> An simple e-mailed response is sufficient for either request. I thank you in advance for your time.
> Kind Regards,
> Jeff Backus