legal August 2020

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

22 participants
15 discussions

joke license (McRae General Public License)
by Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 06 Aug '20

06 Aug '20

It seems one of the filter lists (Peter Lowe's adservers list) in uBlock Origin is licensed under this[1] and the author considers it a "joke license"[2]. Nonetheless, it explicitly forbids commercial use, telling the licensee to "stick it..." if they don't agree. uBlock Origin upstream doesn't think this is an issue[3], but I'm not so sure. My plan is to scrub the affected files from the tarball until the author can be convinced to change the license. uBlock Origin can download it on its own, anyway. It's there for convenience only, by default. Am I overly cautious? Is this kind of "filter list" copyrightable at all? Thoughts? [1] https://pgl.yoyo.org/license/ [2] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/7657#issuecomment-657230694 [3] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/7657#issuecomment-657218646 -- Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan

4 5

Spot's RH mail on legal wiki page
by Honza Horak 05 Aug '20

05 Aug '20

Hey, there is tcallawa(a)redhat.com still mentioned on one place on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main ("Documentation Licenses" section). Please, change it to legal@ as on different places, as the Spot's RH mail does not work any more. Thanks, Honza

2 1

License of libevent's ax_prog_doxygen.m4
by Ondřej Lysoněk 04 Aug '20

04 Aug '20

Hi, a new version of libevent bundles a file ax_prog_doxygen.m4 [1]. The license text says the following: # Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, are # permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright notice # and this notice are preserved. Not being a native speaker, I'm not sure how exactly to interpret that sentence, but it sounds to me like there could be a restriction on commercial use. (What got me additionally confused is that the file is hosted on gnu.org.) Is this a Free software license or not? Thank you very much. [1] http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf-archive.git;a=blob_plain;f=m… Best regards Ondřej Lysoněk

3 3

Is BSD-2-Clause with addition clause allowed?
by Vascom 01 Aug '20

01 Aug '20

Hello. I want to add rtklib in repos and I need to Know about allowing it's license in Fedora. It is BSD-2-Clause but with addition clause: - The software package includes some companion executive binaries or shared libraries necessary to execute APs on Windows. These licenses succeed to the original ones of these software. Full text available here https://github.com/tomojitakasu/RTKLIB/blob/master/readme.txt But I am not include any binary or windows specific files in package.

2 2

Please give your advice in bug 1801519
by Robert-André Mauchin 01 Aug '20

01 Aug '20

Hello, Could you please take a look at bug 1801519? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801519 The package is golang-github-google-licenseclassifier. It contains the text of a large number of licenses to detect them. Some of these Licenses are good for Fedora, other not. Basically am I allowed to distribute the text of these licenses along my package? What it the license status of the text of the licenses? Is each license covered by itself? Best regards, Robert-André

3 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal August 2020