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.
4 years, 5 months
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
4 years, 5 months
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.
4 years, 5 months
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
4 years, 6 months
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-----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=+QpI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
4 years, 6 months