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
reg. fedora name as trademark
by Sindhu S
hi
I noticed there is a website called usefedora.com that sells a product to
make online schools. Is this a violation of any trademark that redhat might
hold with regards to the Fedora name?
Thanks!
--
-Sindhu
8 years, 2 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
Transitive Grace Period Public LIcense ("TGGPL") v. 1.0
by Eric Smith
Is this license, used by Tahoe-LAFS, acceptable for Fedora (and EPEL)?
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/trunk/COPYING.TGPPL.rst?re...
As you can see, the file starts with a list of exception clauses
granting additional permissions, similar to some of the common
GPL+exceptions licenses. The license body looks OK to my non-expert
eyes; the main differences seem to be that the copyleft requirements
are allowed under some circumstances to be delayed for up to a year
(section 1c), and the external deployment provisions (section 5),
which I think are similar to the AGPL.
If there are any issues with the license preventing it from being
packaged for Fedora, I think the author may be amenable to working
them out.
Thanks,
Eric
9 years
