[Fedora-legal-list] re-packaging iText
orcanbahri at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 3 18:09:12 UTC 2008
--- On Wed, 10/1/08, Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> From: Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] re-packaging iText
> To: orcanbahri at yahoo.com
> Cc: fedora-legal-list at redhat.com
> Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2008, 8:03 AM
> On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 21:57 -0700, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> > Hi, I wanted to bring into attention the recent
> development in the licensing of the iText. This software was
> included in Fedora in the past but then removed due to
> licensing trouble:
> > (i) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=176981
> > and especially
> > (ii)
> > According to the second link it was removed from F-7
> because of the fact that it contained some Sun-licensed
> > I downloaded the software from its current website:
> > http://www.lowagie.com/iText/download.html
> > The website claims a dual MPLv1.1 / LGPL license.
> Inside the package there is a text file
> (core/com/lowagie/text/misc_licenses.txt), which I will
> paste to the bottom of this email.
> > The most relevant parts of this txt file are in
> section (3). The original license ended with the sentence:
> "You acknowledge that Software is not designed,
> licensed or intended for use in the design, construction,
> operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility." The
> word "licensed" caused the trouble in the past
> (see comment#2 in (ii)) as it made the software non-free.
> But according to the txt file there has been some email
> traffic between the original developer and iText developer
> on January 23, 2008 and the word "licensed" has
> been removed from that sentence in the final license.
> > I think we can re-consider packaging this software. I
> want to make sure we are on solid grounds.
> > Please post your opinions.
> Show me a package, and I'll audit it.
The package is in bugzilla now. Any feedback will be appreciated.
More information about the legal