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, 9 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
Linking of GPL-only and GPL-incompatible libraries
by Florian Weimer
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
9 years, 3 months
Source Requirements
by Dennis Gilmore
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
A couple of questions.
1) can we please stop making source isos? the source is available in
the source tree.
2) cloud WG wants to be able to produce updates images, what are our
requirements to ensuring source compliance with the GPL?
Today the sources for livecds and appliance images are only in the
source tree and not separated out. if we do updates images some sources
will be in the base source tree and some in updates, however the
updates sources will go away if the package gets another update. the
only single source where we could point people at is koji.
Dennis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)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=jifW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9 years, 6 months
Allow to delete builds/coprs from playground? (was: Re: Meeting minute from Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-04-15))
by Honza Horak
On 04/15/2014 04:22 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> ============================================
> #fedora-meeting: Env and Stacks (2014-04-15)
> ============================================
>
>
> Meeting started by mmaslano at 12:01:12 UTC. The full logs are available
> at
> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-04-15/env-and-stacks...
>
> .
>
>
>
> Meeting summary
> ---------------
> * init process (mmaslano, 12:01:30)
> * LINK:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Workstation_Enable_Software_Collec...
>
> (jreznik, 12:10:17)
>
> * Playground repository (tjanez, 12:32:45)
> * LINK: https://github.com/fedora-haskell/common/blob/master/common.mk
> very low-tech :) (juhp, 13:53:18)
> * ACTION: hhorak will add an item to the playground open questions
> about deleting the packages/builds already introduced in playground
> and will send the summary of the irc discussion to the mailing list
> to continue (hhorak, 14:04:32)
Added to open questions:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Playground_repository_%28dr...
And these are actually the comments from today's meeting worth keeping
in mind:
* people install packages and later then we are not able to find the
source for those packages
* disc space for copr builds is very limited
* rawhide deletes old builds as well but we can always find the source
in dist-git (not possible in copr)
* keeping only srpms could be enough (for me personally it seems like
the compromise)
* we're not sure if deleting packages in playground would violate GPL
(legal list CC'd and the question could be -- "Is it violation of GPL if
we offer RPMs and SRPMs at some point and delete them after some time?"
-- now it seems like common scenario, happening every day, but rather
asking to be sure)
Regards,
Honza
> * We may follow the Workstation group's "Proposed System Wide Change:
> Workstation: Enable Software Collections" and discuss it on the
> devel list (hhorak, 14:12:48)
> * mirek-hm talked about "dnf playground enable" which would enable all
> copr repos in playground (hhorak, 14:15:59)
> * We talked about scenario that playground would be implemented by
> "copr with playground flag" + "dnf plugin working with such corps".
> No voting done. No final decisions. (hhorak, 14:19:57)
>
> Meeting ended at 14:21:35 UTC.
>
>
>
>
> Action Items
> ------------
> * hhorak will add an item to the playground open questions about
> deleting the packages/builds already introduced in playground and will
> send the summary of the irc discussion to the mailing list to continue
>
>
>
>
> Action Items, by person
> -----------------------
> * hhorak
> * hhorak will add an item to the playground open questions about
> deleting the packages/builds already introduced in playground and
> will send the summary of the irc discussion to the mailing list to
> continue
> * **UNASSIGNED**
> * (none)
>
>
>
>
> People Present (lines said)
> ---------------------------
> * juhp (122)
> * mmaslano (66)
> * hhorak (47)
> * tjanez (43)
> * mirek-hm (26)
> * jreznik (13)
> * drago01 (6)
> * jwb (5)
> * zodbot (4)
> * Southern_Gentlem (4)
> * pkovar (2)
> * bkabrda (0)
> * samkottler (0)
> * abadger1999 (0)
> * drieden (0)
>
>
>
>
> Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
>
> .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
>
> _______________________________________________
> env-and-stacks mailing list
> env-and-stacks(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/env-and-stacks
9 years, 7 months
