legal March 2015

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

15 participants
14 discussions

Henry Spencer's license
by Petr Šabata 06 Mar '23

06 Mar '23

Dear legal, 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: https://metacpan.org/source/SHAY/perl-5.20.1/regexec.c 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? Thank you, Petr

5 9

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

reg. fedora name as trademark
by Sindhu S 14 Oct '15

14 Oct '15

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

4 3

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

19 Mar '15

Hi, 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 in https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gnome-design-team/gnome-mockups/master/sy… ) The design suggests that we should include a link to privacy policy of the OS vendor here. I've been pointed at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:PrivacyPolicy as the existing Fedora privacy policy, but that seems entirely focused on Fedora the 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 ? Matthias

11 27

a derivative of the Linux Documentation Project License
by Björn Persson 14 Mar '15

14 Mar '15

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 | manual.) The license text is included below. Shall I call this license "LDPL", or does it need a name of its own? Björn Persson MySQL++ User Manual License ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I. COPYRIGHT The copyright to the MySQL++ User Manual is owned by its authors. II. LICENSE 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 following requirements: 1. The modified version must be labeled as such. 2. The person making the modifications must be identified. 3. Acknowledgement of the original author must be retained. 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 authors' permission. In addition it is requested that: 1. The modifications (including deletions) be noted. 2. The authors be notified by email of the modification in advance of redistribution, if an email address is provided in the document. 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.

2 2

updating embargoed nations wiki page -- board to council
by Matthew Miller 13 Mar '15

13 Mar '15

See https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/24. 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? Thanks! -- Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> Fedora Project Leader

2 1

Suitability of EPICS Open License
by Richard Fearn 12 Mar '15

12 Mar '15

Hi, I would like to get the legal team's opinion on the EPICS Open License: http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics/license/open.php This licence is used for the Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System (EPICS): http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics/ More information about the licence can be found here: http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics/license/index.php Thanks, Richard -- Richard Fearn richardfearn(a)gmail.com

3 7

New "Artistic clarified" LICENSE
by Alec Leamas 12 Mar '15

12 Mar '15

Dear list, During review of the tonto package [1] it turns out it carries a license which is similar, but not identical to the Artistic Clarified license in the Fedora License list[2]. FWIW, in my eyes it looks like an "even more clarified" version. Can this license be considered free? If so, how should I use it? For convenience, the tonto license is at http://ur1.ca/jw8e9 Thanks, --alec [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197471 [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:ArtisticClarified?rd=Licensing/Art…

1 1

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] license question about a new package
by Martin Gansser 09 Mar '15

09 Mar '15

!! 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-2.5.2-2.20140804gitcbfa… %changelog * Sun Mar 08 2015 Martin Gansser <linux4martin(a)gmx.de> 2.5.2-2.20140804gitcbfafe4 - removed bundled rtmpdump - added BR librtmp-devel Martin > Gesendet: Sonntag, 08. März 2015 um 12:25 Uhr > Von: "Christopher Meng" <cickumqt(a)gmail.com> > An: "Martin Gansser" <linux4martin(a)web.de> > Cc: legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > 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 > > http://cicku.me[http://cicku.me]

2 2

objenesis - files with unclear licensing
by Michal Srb 09 Mar '15

09 Mar '15

Hi folks, Package "objenesis" in Fedora contains two files with following license header: /** * COPYRIGHT & LICENSE * * This code is Copyright (c) 2006 BEA Systems, inc. It is provided free, as-is and without any warranties for the purpose of * inclusion in Objenesis or any other open source project with a FSF approved license, as long as this notice is not * removed. There are no limitations on modifying or repackaging the code apart from this. * * BEA does not guarantee that the code works, and provides no support for it. Use at your own risk. * * Originally developed by Leonardo Mesquita. Copyright notice added by Henrik St\u00E0hl, BEA JRockit Product Manager. * */ Does this mean that these files are licensed under ASL 2.0 as the rest of the objenesis project? [1] Thanks, Michal [1]: http://objenesis.org/license.html

2 1

license question about a new package
by Martin Gansser 08 Mar '15

08 Mar '15

Hi, I have a question about the packet xvst, can it be included in fedora or belongs it to rpmfusion. However, I am unsure what regards the downloaded content. But the technical possibility of copy-protected porn download could be a problem of License Terms. On the other hand, we also have youtube-dl, officially in Fedora. How should I proceed here? the scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9169191[https://3c.web.d… Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/xvst.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/xvst-2.5.2-1.20140804gitcbfa… Thanks for your feedback.

2 1

license question about a new package
by Martin Gansser 07 Mar '15

07 Mar '15

1 0

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [Fedora-packaging] questions about license file migration
by Björn Persson 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 04:38:16PM +0100, Björn Persson wrote: > > 2: When a package has a list of authors separate from the license file, > > should that list also be tagged as a license file, or is it considered > > regular documentation? It seems to me that *who* gives out a license is > > important information that belongs together with the license. > > With a big "I'm not Fedora Legal" disclaimer, I think the answer here > is really... it depends. > > The intent here is primarily to make it possible to exclude bulky > documentation for containers and other space-constrained installations > while keeping legally-required license statements in place. Authorship > files may or may not be part of that. Then I suppose I should ask Fedora Legal, so I'm CCing the legal list. If it were a legal requirement, then I suppose it would also apply when the author's name is written in a README file together with a lot of other information. I don't remember seeing any explicit requirement to include a separate file with a list of authors. It just feels weird to have a license without a licensor. There are some licenses that contain phrases like "the above copyright notice", but in those cases it's in the same file. Björn Persson

2 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal March 2015