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
I wanted to package UROnode, it seemed to be GPLv2+ licensed amateur radio
software (mirror ), but I came across the following weird text in the
package (in addition to the GPLv2 text):
> URONode is free to use around the globe with the exception of:
> anywhere in or by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> anywhere in or by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
> Because of their tactics, any of my software is not to be used in these two
> states. Your cooperation is appreciated..
> - N1URO
can be such package included in Fedora?
thanks & regards
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
What's the appropriate license tag for this license?
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
It's the ISC license minus the disclaimer. Is it still appropriate to
BTW, I noticed that Licensing:Main on the wiki has a dead link for the
ISC license. The new URL seems to be:
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
I am trying to package axmail for Fedora. It's released under GPLv2+,
but in the sources  there is file with the following text:
* Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
* All rights reserved.
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
* provided that this notice is preserved and that due credit is given
* to the University of California at Berkeley. The name of the University
* may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
* software without specific prior written permission. This software
* is provided ``as is'' without express or implied warranty.
What is it? BSD-like? Can the resulting package be released under
thanks & regards