legal December 2017

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

3 participants
6 discussions

Sleepycat license with SaaS restriction
by Florian Weimer 08 Jul '25

08 Jul '25

cryptlib is licensed under the Sleepycat license with a SaaS restriction: “Note that decoupling the software from the user, for example by running in a SaaS configuration, does not exempt you from these requirements.” (Full text attached.) This was not part of the original Sleepycat license, so a new license tag is required. Maybe this license is not even free; this additional clause seems to be a restriction on use. But perhaps it is not so different from the AGPL. Thanks, Florian

6 8

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

about openssl we may enable and build all elliptic curves on corp ?
by Sérgio Basto 05 Nov '22

05 Nov '22

Hello, I reopen or start thinking again on this question of enable elliptic curves of openssl [1] So going directly to the point, may I built all source of openssl in copr [2] ? or at least some other curves that fedora package don't ship? [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405843 [2] Version: 1.0.2k %global fips_version 2.0.14 I mean sources: http://ftp.o penssl.org/source/openssl-%{version}.tar.gz and http://ftp.openssl.org/s ource/openssl-fips-%{fips_version}.tar.gz Thanks , -- Sérgio M. B.

4 6

libdvdcss package in COPR
by Michal Novotny 10 Jan '18

10 Jan '18

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-build-… Thank you Michal Novotny

5 5

Ocaml documentation license
by Florian Weimer 03 Jan '18

03 Jan '18

Should Fedora distribute content under the Ocaml documentation license? The license says: “ The present documentation is copyright © 2013 Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA). The OCaml documentation and user’s manual may be reproduced and distributed in whole or in part, subject to the following conditions: • The copyright notice above and this permission notice must be preserved complete on all complete or partial copies. • Any translation or derivative work of the OCaml documentation and user’s manual must be approved by the authors in writing before distribution. • If you distribute the OCaml documentation and user’s manual in part, instructions for obtaining the complete version of this manual must be included, and a means for obtaining a complete version provided. • Small portions may be reproduced as illustrations for reviews or quotes in other works without this permission notice if proper citation is given. ” For program source code, this would clearly not be allowed because derivative works are not permitted. Are such restrictions permitted for documentation licenses in Fedora? Thanks, Florian

2 2

Relicensing Cura to LGPLv3+ (but is still uses AGPLv3+ and GPLv3)
by Miro Hrončok 04 Dec '17

04 Dec '17

Hi there, recently, Cura, a 3D printing software by Ultimaker and its community have been relicensed from AGPLv3+ to LGPLv3+ [0][1]. When updating Cura in Fedora, I forgot to check, and it's still listed as AGPLv3+. However, I'm not sure whether I can change the tag to LGPLv3+, because it uses other software with "stronger" licenses. In fact, there seem to be a problem already with Uranium (python-uranium SRPM). Cura uses CuraEngine (AGPLv3+) trough a protobuf interface [2]. I'm unsure whether a protobuf interface makes the AGPLv3+ "infect" Cura. I'd guess it does. Cura uses (Python imports) Uranium (currently also listed as LGPLv3+ in Fedora) that imports PyQt5 (GPLv3). I'm confident that PyQt5's GPLv3 "infects" both Uranium and Cura to be GPLv3. It's the PyQt5's authors business model [3]. So I guess Uranium should be GPLv3 and Cura should be either GPLv3 or AGPLv3 (no +) depending on the protobuf thing. I wonder if what Ultimaker is doing is even possible, and whether I should ask them about it, but before I do, I'll ask here. BTW Our python-qt5 package (PyQt5 upstream) is listed in Fedora as "BSD and GPLv2+" which I'm confident is not true and I opened [4] while investigating this. Thanks for help. [0] https://ultimaker.com/en/community/50303-cura-license-update-from-agpl-to-l… [1] https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/commit/9a193ad5c5ab5324ad1335dd9adf80fef2… [2] https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/blob/master/plugins/CuraEngineBackend/Cur… [3] https://www.riverbankcomputing.com/commercial/license-faq [4] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520186 -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

2 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal December 2017