I am planning to package Geant 4 for Fedora, but I noticed Geant4's
license is different from an usual one, which can be found here , I
don't know if this is acceptable, if so, can you please add this to
the 'Good License' list?
And this toolkit can be funicational only with a number of datasets,
mostly released by National Nuclear Data Center, I can't find any
license attached to those data files. National Nuclear Data Center
gives a term of use here  saying
> Users should feel free to use the information from NuDat 2 (tables and plots) in their work, reports, presentations, articles and books.
A general citations list of those datasets can be found here .
Seems that all of that data is royalty-free but instead of being
released as a part of a software, it is more likely to be released as
scientific papers. I think the term here  can apply here, but
So I need help from the legal team to determine if this is acceptable.
have the ADT Pulse security system (www.adt.com), which uses an iControlOne hub that is managed with software that is written and copyrighted by "iControlOne". The software itself says to go to "[http://www.icontrolone.com/]" to see open source license information.
When I go there and then click the link for the "Open Source Attributions" page, that brings up a list of software, licences, and whether or not they have modified the code.
One of the entries in the list is:
Furthermore, the site says "Modified versions of open source software available upon request.", but they have ABSOLUTELY NO contact information nor any method listed to contact them.
With no way to actually make the request, their statement about "being available upon request" is nothing short of a fraudulent misstatement.
As such, this company is clearly violating the terms of the fedora license, as they provide no method for actually requesting such a copy of the software--and there is no visible way to even find any contact for the actual company itself.
I have a review request for a firmware: Boot firmware (ATF, UEFI...) for
I would like some opinions on whether this is acceptable firmware. The binary
contains open source code for which the license are documented, but no code
source is provided, only the resulting binary firmware.
Thanks for any help,
Looking for example at git-lfs:
I am afraid that the license field is wrong. Since the Go packages are
statically linked, that means also content of all the BR is part of the
binary packages and therefore should include their licenses. This also
applies to Rust and all other statically linked packages.
I believe the guidelines should be amended to handle this scenario and
all the packages fixed appropriately.
review request, the upstream license is
That is a GPLv3 with the exception:
In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders give
permission to link the code of portions of this program with the
OpenSSL library under certain conditions as described in each
individual source file, and distribute linked combinations
including the two.
It looks like a GNU General Public License v3.0 only, with Classpath exception, but I can't tell.
Anyone can help me? Thanks in advance!
Hi, I have a question about exFAT in Fedora. I would like to package
exfatprogs (new userspace exFAT utilities from Samsung) for Fedora
but exFAT is still listed in the forbidden items. I assume this was
not updated when Microsoft allowed including the exFAT driver in kernel
and exFAT should be allowed now. But I'm not a legal expert so it's
possible I'm missing something here. So my question is simple: can we
package exfatprogs for Fedora now or not? Thanks.