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. :)
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?
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
While checking the contents of our `perl' package, I noticed the following:
/* NOTE: this is derived from Henry Spencer's regexp code, and should not
* confused with the original package (see point 3 below). Thanks, Henry!
/* Additional note: this code is very heavily munged from Henry's version
* in places. In some spots I've traded clarity for efficiency, so don't
* blame Henry for some of the lack of readability.
/* The names of the functions have been changed from regcomp and
* regexec to pregcomp and pregexec in order to avoid conflicts
* with the POSIX routines of the same names.
* pregcomp and pregexec -- regsub and regerror are not used in perl
* Copyright (c) 1986 by University of Toronto.
* Written by Henry Spencer. Not derived from licensed software.
* Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any
* purpose on any computer system, and to redistribute it freely,
* subject to the following restrictions:
* 1. The author is not responsible for the consequences of use of
* this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise
* from defects in it.
* 2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either
* by explicit claim or by omission.
* 3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not
* be misrepresented as being the original software.
**** Alterations to Henry's code are...
**** Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
**** 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
**** by Larry Wall and others
**** You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
**** License or the Artistic License, as specified in the README file.
You can see the whole file here:
I looked but couldn't find any common name for this license
of Henry's. Is it on our list? Is it free? What name should
I use in the License tag?
we are working on improving the abrt integration in the Fedora
Workstation for F22. Part of this is adding a 'automatic bug reporting'
setting to the privacy panel in the control center (see the last mockup
the OS vendor here. I've been pointed at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:PrivacyPolicy as the existing
project, not on the OS itself. It also does not mention coredumps (and
the associated data we may collect) at all. Could you add a section
about that here, or should there be a separate page describing the
privacy expectations when using Fedora, the OS ?
The MySQL++ User Manual has another license than the library itself,
but the -manuals subpackage inherits its License field from the main
package. This shall be fixed, but it's not obvious what the license of
the manual should be called. It's described as follows:
| The MySQL++ User Manual is licensed under a unique license derived from
| the Linux Documentation Project License. (The only changes are due to
| the fact that the User Manual isn't actually part of the LDP, so a lot
| of the language in the LDPL doesn't make sense when applied to the user
The license text is included below. Shall I call this license "LDPL",
or does it need a name of its own?
MySQL++ User Manual License
The copyright to the MySQL++ User Manual is owned by its authors.
The MySQL++ User Manual may be reproduced and distributed in whole
or in part, in any medium physical or electronic, provided that
this license notice is displayed in the reproduction. Commercial
redistribution is permitted and encouraged. Thirty days advance
notice via email to the authors of redistribution is appreciated,
to give the authors time to provide updated documents.
A. REQUIREMENTS OF MODIFIED WORKS
All modified documents, including translations,
anthologies, and partial documents, must meet the
1. The modified version must be labeled as such.
2. The person making the modifications must be
3. Acknowledgement of the original author must be
4. The location of the original unmodified
document be identified.
5. The original authors' names may not be used
to assert or imply endorsement of the
resulting document without the original
In addition it is requested that:
1. The modifications (including deletions)
2. The authors be notified by email of the
modification in advance of redistribution,
if an email address is provided in
Mere aggregation of the MySQL++ User Manual with other
documents or programs on the same media shall not cause
this license to apply to those other works.
All translations, derivative documents, or modified
documents that incorporate the MySQL++ User Manual may
not have more restrictive license terms than these,
except that you may require distributors to make the
resulting document available in source format.
I'm updating various wiki pages to reflect current project structure.
One such page is https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Embargoed_nations. This
contains several statements about Fedora Board beliefs and findings. I
would like to propose that we simply replace Board with Council
everywhere it appears.
>From a legal perspective, is there any issue with this?
Fedora Project Leader
!! Package can not go into Fedora, due rpmfusion package dependencies of librtmp.
Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/xvst.spec
SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/xvst-2.5.2-2.20140804gitcb...
* Sun Mar 08 2015 Martin Gansser <linux4martin(a)gmx.de> 2.5.2-2.20140804gitcbfafe4
- removed bundled rtmpdump
- added BR librtmp-devel
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 08. März 2015 um 12:25 Uhr
> Von: "Christopher Meng" <cickumqt(a)gmail.com>
> An: "Martin Gansser" <linux4martin(a)web.de>
> Cc: email@example.com
> Betreff: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] license question about a new package
> Users have their choices to download any kinds of videos they want.
> I'd say good luck to you(previous youtube-dl maintainer in Fedora) to
> package such kind of software into Fedora.
> Yours sincerely,
> Christopher Meng