legal July 2014

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

4 participants
6 discussions

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CAcert.org license
by Tom Callaway 12 Feb '16

12 Feb '16

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

4 6

winetricks
by T.C. Hollingsworth 01 Aug '15

01 Aug '15

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

5 7

UROnode licensing question
by Jaroslav Skarvada 28 Nov '14

28 Nov '14

Hi, I wanted to package UROnode, it seemed to be GPLv2+ licensed amateur radio software (mirror [1]), 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 Jaroslav [1] http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/uronode-2.1.tar.gz

3 7

Linking of GPL-only and GPL-incompatible libraries
by Florian Weimer 25 Aug '14

25 Aug '14

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

3 12

License tag for the minimal BSD license
by Florian Weimer 07 Aug '14

07 Aug '14

What's the appropriate license tag for this license? Copyright … 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 use "ISC"? BTW, I noticed that Licensing:Main on the wiki has a dead link for the ISC license. The new URL seems to be: http://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/ -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security

2 1

axmail licensing question
by Jaroslav Skarvada 19 Jul '14

19 Jul '14

Hi, I am trying to package axmail for Fedora. It's released under GPLv2+, but in the sources [1] 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 GPLv2+? thanks & regards Jaroslav [1] http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/axmail/axmail-2.0.tar.gz

3 3

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal July 2014