November 2017 - legal - Fedora Mailing-Lists

by Michal Novotny

Hello, is it alright to host libdvdcss package in COPR or should it be deleted? (more info here: https://www.videolan.org/legal.html). The licence is ok (GPL) and it's not listed here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items But I am not sure if it goes well with US regulations. See COPR specific regulations here: https://docs.pagure.org/copr.copr/user_documentation.html#what-i-can-buil... Thank you Michal Novotny

1 year, 1 month

5
5
0 / 0

Perfect DOS VGA 437 - is it okay to package this font?

by Artur Iwicki

Hello. I'm currently trying to package some games for Fedora; since all of them come from one author, they share a lot of their dependencies. One of the dependencies if the "Perfect DOS VGA 437" font. While there's no licence explicitly stated, I wrote an e-mail to the author and he responded that "the font is free to use for any purpose. No crediting needed either. Feel free to use it." However, there's a different issue I want to ask about. The 2003 blog post where the author describes the process behind creating the font says: >So I fired up QuickBasic (!), created a quick program to display >all 255 characters directly on screen, and captured the screen >using Screen Thief, a classic DOS image grabbing software that >accompanied me for ages (it was mainly created to capture game >screens on DOS, but it did capture text screens on graphic format). As such, I wonder - could this font be seen as infringing copyright, and thus, not suitable for inclusion in Fedora? Full link to aforementioned blog post: http://zehfernando.com/2003/flash-ansi-viewer-and-reflections-on-flash-sp... Thank you for your time, A.I.

1 year, 2 months

2
1
0 / 0

JpGraph and "open source use"

by Randy Barlow

Hello! It's me again with another question about a weird license wording on a library. tl;dr; JpGraph's download page[0] says: "JpGraph is released under a dual license. QPL 1.0 (Qt Free License) For non-commercial, open-source or educational use and JpGraph Professional License for commercial use." I don't know what "open-source use" means, but does that wording make this licensing unacceptable for Fedora? Longer story You may recall a thread I started earlier this year[1] about c-pchart and the strange license that led to a contradiction. I've filed an issue with Ampache[2] (a project that uses c-pchart) and they are willing to switch to a different graphing library to help resolve this legal issue. They are considering JpGraph as a replacement, and had asked if it would be acceptable to Fedora. I am not sure since it has the "non-commercial" and "commercial" language in there. Does the "or" in the QPL satisfy our legal requirements (since "open-source" was included in a list with "or"), or does the language about "commercial use" supercede that? It does seem pretty ambiguous to me. [0] http://jpgraph.net/download/ [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.o... [2] https://github.com/ampache/ampache/issues/1515

1 year, 2 months

2
2
0 / 0

EPL-2.0 license

by Fernando Nasser

Hi, I've got this request asking to add the EPL 2.0 license to Fedora. (and maybe add a EPL-1.0 alias in addition to our EPL for the 1.0 one). I am wondering how this hasn't come up yet. SPDX also only has "EPL-1.0" atm. Regards, Fernando From the original request: ---------------------- As there is already a newer version of EPL - EPL 2.0, we should probably update Fedora rules for abbreviation of such license (optionally also include this new 2.0 version). For particular versions see: https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-v10.html https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0/EPL-2.0.html Thanks in advance.

1 year, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

Licensing wiki page for QPL has dead URL

by Randy Barlow

Greetings! The licensing page[0] in the Wiki lists a URL to a domain that no longer exists: http://doc.qt.digia.com/3.0/license.html [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main

1 year, 2 months

2
1
0 / 0

Is OpenSpades content license acceptable for COPR?

by Mihai-Drosi Caju

Greetings, I would like to distribute OpenSpades on COPR. The license of the code itself is GPLv3. But it depends on content which I am not sure can be distributed on COPR. I have attached a link to the license in question below. Can I distribute the files in question on COPR? https://github.com/yvt/openspades-paks/blob/master/Nonfree/LICENSE.md

1 year, 2 months

6
9
0 / 0

GPLv2+ vs GPLv3+

by Mattia Verga

I'm reviewing a new package to be included in Fedora repos. [1] As always, I'm making confusion between GPLv2+ and GPLv3+... license in spec file is "GPLv3+ and MIT", but some sources are licensed GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ also. The COPYING file itself distributed in sources is a GPLv2 license. What license is right to be write in spec file? Mattia [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081

1 year, 3 months

3
5
0 / 0

CUPS changing from GPLv2 to ASL2.0 -- implications?

by Solomon Peachy

Folks, CUPS has announced [1] they're going to release all future versions under the Apache 2.0 license, instead of the GPLv2+exceptions they used to use. This appears to have some thorny implications due to license incompatibilities with GPLv2-only stuff, and the ramifications of bumping [L]GPLv2+ stuff to v3 for purposes of linking against CUPS. Rather than several of us prattling on about what we think this might mean for Fedora [2], it seems prudent to ask actual legal folks about how to proceed. (FWIW, I suspect convincing Apple to dual-license CUPS isn't going to happen..) BTW, my personal interest in this has to do with my involvement with Gutenprint. [3] [1] https://lists.cups.org/pipermail/cups-devel/2017-November/017085.html [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o... [3] https://sourceforge.net/p/gimp-print/mailman/message/36108142/ - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org Coconut Creek, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

1 year, 3 months

3
2
0 / 0

Dealing with patented code included in tarballs

by Igor Gnatenko

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi, I maintain some package and it used to include some patented stuff before. Now I sanitize tarball, but what's the deal with old versions? - -- - -Igor Gnatenko -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEhLFO09aHZVqO+CM6aVcUvRu8X0wFAloFs2YACgkQaVcUvRu8 X0zJsxAAonqdBKx8eKt4pnYHZc323DNWJQ4H11JPwxmFJBk2/GGwTT8veMo9znn6 Mk3cofDmJttvom/DBM2gequjVOtiGgqlH0a7M4pXxmNXy4+cU2ktjaduKTmgT+th RJL8qjvp3Wpwz/SoutwJN3DCJ1B/7fEjtaFXLXXvmNNqClSlkYGr2T3OWUfIp0z9 hAtVCsPqh625w6HdeSpISxxRfkWNtWao6d5kIA2+Cmce+odT+oPdZhc+WNLzBTpd //EHEeXoOHJxhWcTJOVO9d8Civ+0+1jh6gTGWuy8wXEe0DiSiwG/XY1Gx6jeSeBH 01xzPs2Qo6Fn/VMbwX7SH0UC8IUshuWVhhx4EqI/KdWj+a2+XKk+jnxa70wVpCIb b0uHJW0PyRxN+K+8bYej98e5u/6GSP1O+Ftf44DKlEzwf+32tiMqqTHxdHww8/z1 gMxP7jFzeeFvf3pQB4ctpzOMnRlGhIX3X1oWkgHXYiQLfcMJC7HGfpIUreWz89vQ hRRTdF/vnT3veSXR/2SHD9pN1vzOrZY4dDmX3T6tIE1iFbksDkD0s2srrEYBdMtC MiwiXTRgl3mlFiRO6X3r29NnvQOnDI3wXjLcQmoWV7TrageHlKcjraIw5qaNxQs9 5uRaxY8Z5GFA2LOY87JDPuP2PY/RlelvfDqZYm5ExXDofav2LJ8= =+QpI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 year, 3 months

2
1
0 / 0

CDDL 1.0 and 1.1

by Fernando Nasser

Hi all, We have this entry in our good software licenses table: Common Development Distribution License CDDL Yes *NO* *NO* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CDDL But there are now two CDDL licenses: Common Development and Distribution License 1.0 <https://spdx.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0.html> Common Development and Distribution License 1.1 <https://spdx.org/licenses/CDDL-1.1.html> Please note that the CDDL 1.1 is not yet in the OSI license list: https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical But it is already in the SPDX list: https://spdx.org/licenses/ How should I proceed to get the CDDL 1.1 added to our list? Should we make the new short name "CDDL 1.1" and leave the 1.0 one as just "CDDL" or should we make it "CDDL 1.0" so packages using that eventually get the License tag updated? Regards to all, Fernando

1 year, 3 months

2
2
0 / 0

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal November 2017