legal May 2022

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

11 participants
12 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

Brainpool Curves in Fedora (openssl, libgcrypt, gnupg)
by Timothée Ravier 21 May '24

21 May '24

Hi everyone, The ECC Brainpool Curves [1][2] are currently not available in Fedora as according to this BZ [3], this needs Fedora Legal approval. Could someone from the legal team take a look to see if there are any blockers regarding Brainpool Curves inclusion in Fedora? Thanks! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic-curve_cryptography#Implementation [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5639 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413618

14 31

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

Updated IEEE license
by Florian Weimer 09 Aug '22

09 Aug '22

The licensing wiki says that the IEEE license is a “good” documentation license. However, with the 2017 release, IEEE switched to this license: | The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and The Open Group, | have given us permission to reprint portions of their documentation. | | In the following statement, the phrase ``this text'' refers to portions of | the system documentation. | | Portions of this text are reprinted and reproduced in electronic form in | the Linux man-pages project, from IEEE Std 1003.1-2017, Standard for | Information Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX), The | Open Group Base Specifications Issue 7, 2018 Edition, Copyright (C) 2018 | by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc and The Open | Group. In the event of any discrepancy between these versions and the | original IEEE and The Open Group Standard, the original IEEE and The Open | Group Standard is the referee document. The original Standard can be | obtained online at http://www.opengroup.org/unix/online.html . | | This notice shall appear on any product containing this material. <https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/man-pages/man-pages-posix/ma…> This license no longer permits modified redistribution, as far as I can see. Is this still an acceptable documentation license as far as Fedora is concerned? Thanks, Florian

2 4

FIGlet fonts
by Lyes Saadi 26 Jul '22

26 Jul '22

Hello Legal, I'm bringing back a discussion from 2012[1]: Figlet fonts! Indeed, I am trying to package python-pyfiglet[2] as a dependency for other packages. But, after the review, it came up that a lot of weird fonts were included. At the time, I didn't know anything about the discussion, and decided to abort everything. Recently though, a developer contacted me through the bug report, and proposed to help on the issue. He triaged the fonts and separated them depending on whether they were Open-Source or not, and we were thus able to create a clean package with none of the problematic fonts in it. In that discussion[3], emerged the fact that a discussion over this already happened ([1]), but it seems that either no consensus was reached, or that such consensus was lost to time as I wasn't able to find any conversation on figlet either on legal or devel mailing lists archives. And, it seems that the issue was just simply avoided since figlet ended up removing the problematic fonts anyway. But, upstream would like to keep the problematic fonts if possible in Fedora. And so, I would like to ask Legal to either give me the answer, if it actually was a settled matter, or to reach a consensus on Figlet fonts. To resume the situation (as I understand it, I am not a lawyer, obviously): In the US, fonts glyphs are not copyright-able as it is considered insufficiently creative. For the same reason, Bitmap fonts (fonts defined pixel by pixel) are also not copyright-able, as they are only considered as data which represents glyphs. But, Vector fonts (fonts defined using drawing instructions and code), is, on the other hand, copyright-able because it is defined through a software code. Then, we come to Figlet fonts. For those not aware of what Figlet fonts, they are also known as ASCII fonts: __ __ ____ __ ____ / / / /__ / / /___ / / ___ ____ _____ _/ / / / /_/ / _ \/ / / __ \ / / / _ \/ __ `/ __ `/ / / / __ / __/ / / /_/ / / /___/ __/ /_/ / /_/ / /_/ /_/ /_/\___/_/_/\____( ) /_____/\___/\__, /\__,_/_(_) |/ /____/ The issue with those is that no ruling (as far as I know) ever concerned that type of font in US Court. Though, one argument would be that Figlet fonts are similar to Bitmap fonts, as they only contain data about glyphs, and do not, in the same way as Vector fonts do, contain code giving to the computer drawing instructions for the fonts. As such Figlet fonts are not modular, or extensible, they just contain raw data about a font. But still, all this is speculation, and, as I said, I am not a lawyer, so I don't have any slight idea if such a defense would hold in court. I hope to have resumed the situation clearly enough and that I didn't make any mistake. Greetings, Lyes Saadi [1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 [2]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108 [3]: https://github.com/pwaller/pyfiglet/issues/89 PS: Can we remove the FE-legal blocker from the review request now that all the fonts have been sorted out?

4 8

Draft attempt to define Fedora license categories
by Richard Fontana 24 Jul '22

24 Jul '22

Greetings, As part of some ongoing efforts to improve information relating to Fedora licensing and licensing policy, we want to provide better documentation around the various license approval categories for Fedora, as currently set forth here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main but which probably will live in the future on docs.fedoraproject.org. Here's a rough draft which I wanted to publish here for review. Feedback/criticisms/suggestions welcome. Side note: This preserves Tom Callaway's historical usage of "good" to mean "Fedora-approved", but I have mixed feelings about this terminology. 1. Licenses for Code “Code” means software code, any other functional material whose principal purpose is to control or facilitate the building of packages, such as an RPM spec file, and other kinds of material that the Fedora Council has classified as "code" rather than "content", but does not include font files. [Comment: This annoyingly and confusingly does not line up with definitions in the FPCA, but Fedora should get rid of the FPCA anyway] A license for code is “good” if the Fedora Project determines that the license is a free/libre//open source license. [Not sure if it's helpful to add the following:] In making this determination, Fedora historically relied primarily on the Free Software Definition as maintained and interpreted by the Free Software Foundation, but out of necessity Fedora passed judgment on many licenses never addressed by the FSF and, in the process, built up an informal body of interpretation and policymaking (admittedly, mostly undocumented) that went far beyond what the FSF had done. Fedora has also sometimes considered the decisions of other community Linux distributions and other important efforts to define and apply FLOSS norms, most notably the OSI’s Open Source Definition. In a small number of cases, Fedora has disagreed with decisions of the FSF and OSI regarding whether particular licenses are FLOSS. 2. Licenses for Documentation Any license that is good for code is also good for documentation. In addition, Fedora may designate a license as good for documentation if (a) the license meets the standards for good licenses for code, (b) the license is designed primarily for technical documentation or otherwise has a history of substantial use in free software communities for documentation, and (c) the license is not commonly or normally used for code. [Comment: this feels unsatisfactory to me, for multiple reasons, but I think it does accurately represent the historical Fedora policy.] 3. Licenses for Content “Content” means any material that is not code, documentation, fonts or binary firmware. Any license that is good for code is also good for content. In addition, Fedora may designate a license as good for content if it restricts or prohibits modification but otherwise meets the standards for good licenses for code. 4. Licenses for Fonts Any license that is good for code is also good for fonts. In addition, Fedora may designate a license as good for fonts if it contains a nominal prohibition on resale or distribution in isolation but otherwise meets the standards for good licenses for code. 5. Licenses for Binary Firmware Some applications, drivers, and hardware require binary-only firmware to boot Fedora or function properly. Fedora permits inclusion of these files if they meet certain requirements [currently set forth at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Binary_Firmware but the non-license part of this needs to move somewhere else ]. Any license that is good for code is also good for binary firmware. In addition, Fedora may designate a particular firmware license as good for firmware if the terms in the license that would not be acceptable in a good code license are limited to the following: * Requirements that the firmware be redistributed only as incorporated in the redistributor's product (or as a maintenance update for existing end users of the redistributor's product), possibly limited further to those products of the redistributor that support or contain the hardware associated with the licensed firmware * Requirements that the redistributor to pass on or impose conditions on users that are no more restrictive than those authorized by Fedora itself with respect to firmware licenses * Prohibitions on modification, reverse engineering, disassembly or decompilation * Requirements that use be in conjunction with the hardware associated with the firmware license Richard

4 6

Re: mininet license
by Iñaki Ucar 13 Jul '22

13 Jul '22

Hi, Kind reminder that the package was accepted [1], and we are blocking on legal. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2072115 Thanks, -- Iñaki Úcar

2 4

Publishing containers based on Fedora
by Andreas Hartmann 13 Jun '22

13 Jun '22

Hello everyone, I recently started to host my own container registry via GitLab. I use it to build container images for my own use (bundling mostly CLI tools at the moment) and would like to publish them, too, so others may use them as well. Now since I use Fedora Linux on all of my systems, I would also like to use it as a base for the containers where necessary (I.e. where alpine Linux doesn't work). Now I'm wondering if there are any restrictions that I should be aware of with regard to the publishing of these images. That is mostly because I have hardly ever seen any container on e.g. the docker Hub that's based on Fedora. I do not use the Fedora trademark, I don't advertise that the containers are built on top of a Fedora base container, I never mention the word Fedora in any of the docs associated with the containers. The only relation between these containers and the Fedora project is the line `FROM registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:36` at the beginning of my Containerfiles. Is this acceptable, or does that already mean that I mustn't publish these images? In case I am allowed to publish such container images: Are there any packages that need to be removed from the containers? I know that Fedora Remixes mustn't use the official Fedora logo RPMs but supply their own instead. Are these part of the containers and hence need I remove them? Finally, again in case I am allowed to publish such container images in the first place, which applications am I allowed to bundle with the containers? I am aware that Fedora has adopted e.g. the "3rd-party repositories" in Gnome Software, which give filtered access to flathub applications, due to legal reasons. I would *assume* that it's okay to publish e.g. GPL-licensed software along with a Fedora container. What about other licenses such as MIT? Sorry for the lengthy mail, but I haven't been involved much with legal matters regarding software in my life before. I just want to make sure I'm legally allowed to do what I want to, *before* I get into trouble for infringing trademarks/licenses or anything. I have already searched the web and the archives of this mailing list, but that didn't produce any results. Thank you in advance! Kind regards Andreas Hartmann

3 3

license of the binary policy
by Jilayne Lovejoy 07 Jun '22

07 Jun '22

Hi Fedora legal and packaging, I'm cross-posting this, as I think it's relevant to both groups. The current policy for filling out the license field of the spec file (as described at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelin… ) states, "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm. When in doubt, ask." As we consider how to improve documentation related to Fedora licensing, it would be helpful to hear people's thoughts on the following: 1) how do you (package maintainers) interpret this policy in practice? 2) what further information/documentation about this policy would be helpful? 3) should this policy be different, and if so, how? 4) any other related thoughts or observations Thanks! Jilayne

4 12

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal May 2022