From shakthimaan at gmail.com  Tue Oct  5 05:58:01 2010
From: shakthimaan at gmail.com (Shakthi Kannan)
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 11:28:01 +0530
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] LatticeMico32 open source license agreement
Message-ID: <AANLkTik+FZuj_5cb0rXpNVNgsUtm+fXJbmFnoU1gNSBT@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I request you to kindly go through this LatticeMico32 open source
license agreement, and let me know if it is an acceptable license for
Fedora:

  http://shakthimaan.com/downloads/notes/lattice-semiconductor-toolchain.LICENSE.txt

The license can be downloaded after creating an account at:

  http://www.latticesemi.com/dynamic/index.cfm?fuseaction=view_documents&document_type=65&sloc=01-01-08-11-48&source=sidebar

Thanks!

SK

-- 
Shakthi Kannan
http://www.shakthimaan.com


From tcallawa at redhat.com  Wed Oct  6 15:05:50 2010
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:05:50 -0400
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] LatticeMico32 open source license agreement
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik+FZuj_5cb0rXpNVNgsUtm+fXJbmFnoU1gNSBT@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik+FZuj_5cb0rXpNVNgsUtm+fXJbmFnoU1gNSBT@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CAC904E.10901@redhat.com>

On 10/05/2010 01:58 AM, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I request you to kindly go through this LatticeMico32 open source
> license agreement, and let me know if it is an acceptable license for
> Fedora:
> 
>   http://shakthimaan.com/downloads/notes/lattice-semiconductor-toolchain.LICENSE.txt

The perl components are listed as being under Artistic 1.0 which is
Non-Free.

The "Cygwin, GCC, binutils and the GDB portions of the software" are
under GPLv2 which is Free. (Although, I doubt that any of this will need
to be packaged for Fedora)

The "newlib" components do not provide a complete license list, stating
that: "this list may omit certain licenses that only pertain to the
copying/modifying of the individual source code." It is impossible for
me to know whether the omitted licenses are free or not.

However, the licenses listed are BSD (1), GPLv2 with exceptions (2), MIT
(3), a new license from AMD that looks to be Permissive and Free (4), a
Non-Free license (5), another Non-Free license (6), a new license from
Sun that looks to be Permissive and Free (7), a new MIT variant (8), MIT
(9), another new MIT variant (10), BSD (11), Same license as #4 with a
different copyright holder (12), BSD (13), BSD (14), BSD (15), BSD (16),
MIT (17), BSD (18), BSD (19), a Non-Free license (20), LGPLv2+ (21),
LGPLv2+ (22), MIT variant (23), Same license as #8 (24), zlib with
acknowledgement, which is Free but GPL-incompatible (25), BSD (26), BSD
(27), BSD (28), BSD (29).

Even if that was the complete list of licenses (which it claims not to
be), assuming all of that pile was compiled together, the result would
be non-free. Also noteworthy would be that if the non-free components
were removed/replaced/relicensed, the result would still be unacceptable
to Fedora because of the GPL-incompatible + GPLv2+ combination.

So, the short answer is no, this is not acceptable to Fedora.

~spot


From juliusdavies at gmail.com  Wed Oct 13 21:49:28 2010
From: juliusdavies at gmail.com (Julius Davies)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:49:28 -0700
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] // No warranty;
	no copyright -- use this as you will.
Message-ID: <AANLkTim=0LGE2-xXRvgNQ0Q0OAqGo-Vnnh1F+piK8jN7@mail.gmail.com>

Quick question:

I see 4 lines of comments in a java source file that might pertain to copyright:

JTidy - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/jtidy

Particular file is src/org/xml/sax/SAXParseException.java
--------------------------
      2 // No warranty; no copyright -- use this as you will.
      3 // $Id: SAXParseException.java,v 1.1 2000/11/14 16:49:04
garypeskin Exp $

     27  * @author David Megginson,
     28  *         <a href="mailto:sax at megginson.com">sax at megginson.com</a>
--------------------------


Maybe this can be classified as effective license = "public domain"?




ps. Thanks so much for your help in 2009.  It resulted in this academic paper:

"Understanding and Auditing the Licensing of Open Source Software Distributions"
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1847953



-- 
yours,

Julius Davies
250-592-2284 (Home)

$ sudo apt-get install cowsay
$ echo "Moo." | cowsay | cowsay -n | cowsay -n
http://juliusdavies.ca/cowsay/


From pafcu at iki.fi  Thu Oct 14 10:37:07 2010
From: pafcu at iki.fi (Stefan Parviainen)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:37:07 +0300
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Reasons for not including MPlayer in main
	repository?
Message-ID: <20101014103707.GE2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>

Hi all,

I have an application that I would like to package, but it has a
dependency on mplayer. It would, therefore, be nice to get a version of
mplayer into the Fedora repositories.

I know the mplayer project has had some legal difficulties
regarding the license previously, but these seem to have been solved
some time ago (e.g. Debian includes a version on mplayer). Currently the
project is released under GPLv2.

The main issue nowadays is probably patents. Apparently support for some
formats can not be included without breaking some patents. Does anyone
on this list have an idea which formats are problematic from the point
of view of the Fedora project? Would removing support for these formats
make it possible to include a stripped version of mplayer in the Fedora
repositories? MPlayer is a fairly well known piece of software, has this
problem been discussed somewhere before?

-- 
Stefan Parviainen




From lemenkov at gmail.com  Thu Oct 14 10:43:15 2010
From: lemenkov at gmail.com (Peter Lemenkov)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:43:15 +0400
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Reasons for not including MPlayer in main
	repository?
In-Reply-To: <20101014103707.GE2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
References: <20101014103707.GE2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin823hHpL9AEcgwvMXCPNTZYnW5MG8F5mx9ntM-@mail.gmail.com>

2010/10/14 Stefan Parviainen <pafcu at iki.fi>:

> The main issue nowadays is probably patents. Apparently support for some
> formats can not be included without breaking some patents. Does anyone
> on this list have an idea which formats are problematic from the point
> of view of the Fedora project? Would removing support for these formats
> make it possible to include a stripped version of mplayer in the Fedora
> repositories?

Removal of "patented" codecs from mplayer renders it almost completely
useless. I'd rather to stay with rpmfusion package.
-- 
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.


From pafcu at iki.fi  Thu Oct 14 11:01:35 2010
From: pafcu at iki.fi (Stefan Parviainen)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:01:35 +0300
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Reasons for not including MPlayer in main
	repository?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin823hHpL9AEcgwvMXCPNTZYnW5MG8F5mx9ntM-@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20101014103707.GE2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
	<AANLkTin823hHpL9AEcgwvMXCPNTZYnW5MG8F5mx9ntM-@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20101014110135.GF2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 02:43:15PM +0400, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> 2010/10/14 Stefan Parviainen <pafcu at iki.fi>:
> 
> > The main issue nowadays is probably patents. Apparently support for some
> > formats can not be included without breaking some patents. Does anyone
> > on this list have an idea which formats are problematic from the point
> > of view of the Fedora project? Would removing support for these formats
> > make it possible to include a stripped version of mplayer in the Fedora
> > repositories?
> 
> Removal of "patented" codecs from mplayer renders it almost completely
> useless. I'd rather to stay with rpmfusion package.

Sure, "almost". I'd rather view free/unencumbered formats using software from the
main repos. If you need support for other formats (I don't*) then you
should use the rpmfusion version. But the question was not what "[you]'d rather"
do, but what obstacles prevent mplayer from being included in Fedora proper.

*assuming Ogg Vorbis/Theora are considered patent-free.

-- 
Stefan Parviainen


From tcallawa at redhat.com  Thu Oct 14 14:41:33 2010
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:41:33 -0400
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] // No warranty;
 no copyright -- use this as you will.
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim=0LGE2-xXRvgNQ0Q0OAqGo-Vnnh1F+piK8jN7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim=0LGE2-xXRvgNQ0Q0OAqGo-Vnnh1F+piK8jN7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CB7169D.3030604@redhat.com>

On 10/13/2010 05:49 PM, Julius Davies wrote:
> David Megginson

... is Canadian. Canadians can put works in the public domain, so this
is fine.

License: Public Domain

~spot


From tcallawa at redhat.com  Thu Oct 14 14:49:53 2010
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:49:53 -0400
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Reasons for not including MPlayer in main
 repository?
In-Reply-To: <20101014110135.GF2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
References: <20101014103707.GE2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>	<AANLkTin823hHpL9AEcgwvMXCPNTZYnW5MG8F5mx9ntM-@mail.gmail.com>
	<20101014110135.GF2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
Message-ID: <4CB71891.90102@redhat.com>

On 10/14/2010 07:01 AM, Stefan Parviainen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 02:43:15PM +0400, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>> 2010/10/14 Stefan Parviainen <pafcu at iki.fi>:
>>
>>> The main issue nowadays is probably patents. Apparently support for some
>>> formats can not be included without breaking some patents. Does anyone
>>> on this list have an idea which formats are problematic from the point
>>> of view of the Fedora project? Would removing support for these formats
>>> make it possible to include a stripped version of mplayer in the Fedora
>>> repositories?
>>
>> Removal of "patented" codecs from mplayer renders it almost completely
>> useless. I'd rather to stay with rpmfusion package.
> 
> Sure, "almost". I'd rather view free/unencumbered formats using software from the
> main repos. If you need support for other formats (I don't*) then you
> should use the rpmfusion version. But the question was not what "[you]'d rather"
> do, but what obstacles prevent mplayer from being included in Fedora proper.
> 
> *assuming Ogg Vorbis/Theora are considered patent-free.

I cannot provide you a list of formats that are problematic.

The problem with mplayer is that it is structured in such a way that is
not modular, at least not in a way that we could in Fedora package
support for known safe formats, such as Ogg Vorbis/Theora, without
conflicting with an rpmfusion package that contains potentially
problematic formats.

~spot


From pafcu at iki.fi  Thu Oct 14 19:30:03 2010
From: pafcu at iki.fi (Stefan Parviainen)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:30:03 +0300
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Reasons for not including MPlayer in main
	repository?
In-Reply-To: <4CB71891.90102@redhat.com>
References: <20101014103707.GE2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
	<20101014110135.GF2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
	<4CB71891.90102@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <201010142230.03883.pafcu@iki.fi>

On Thursday, October 14, 2010 05:49:53 pm Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> I cannot provide you a list of formats that are problematic.
> 
> The problem with mplayer is that it is structured in such a way that is
> not modular, at least not in a way that we could in Fedora package
> support for known safe formats, such as Ogg Vorbis/Theora, without
> conflicting with an rpmfusion package that contains potentially
> problematic formats.

Why exactly would it be a problem to conflict with the rpmfusion package 
(honest question)? Also, could the rpmfusion people not simply give their 
package a higher priority than the one in the Fedora repos? IIRC this is how 
Debian does it.

I'm interested in packaging a stripped version of mplayer, but I feel it would 
be a waste of time if any package is refused due to legal reasons anyway. I 
would, therefore, feel more comfortable if any legal issues could be resolved 
before I start work on packaging. If a list of "bad" formats can not be given, 
how about a list of "known good" ones? At least the ones currently included in 
GStreamer should be OK, right?

-- 
Stefan


From tcallawa at redhat.com  Thu Oct 14 20:15:39 2010
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:15:39 -0400
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Reasons for not including MPlayer in main
 repository?
In-Reply-To: <201010142230.03883.pafcu@iki.fi>
References: <20101014103707.GE2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>	<20101014110135.GF2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>	<4CB71891.90102@redhat.com>
	<201010142230.03883.pafcu@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <4CB764EB.4050306@redhat.com>

On 10/14/2010 03:30 PM, Stefan Parviainen wrote:
> On Thursday, October 14, 2010 05:49:53 pm Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> I cannot provide you a list of formats that are problematic.
>>
>> The problem with mplayer is that it is structured in such a way that is
>> not modular, at least not in a way that we could in Fedora package
>> support for known safe formats, such as Ogg Vorbis/Theora, without
>> conflicting with an rpmfusion package that contains potentially
>> problematic formats.
> 
> Why exactly would it be a problem to conflict with the rpmfusion package 
> (honest question)? Also, could the rpmfusion people not simply give their 
> package a higher priority than the one in the Fedora repos? IIRC this is how 
> Debian does it.

Conflicts cause unnecessary confusion for end-users, and it is a rule
established by rpmfusion. Playing games with package priority simply
leads to confusion as versions change and causes end user expectations
to not be met.

> I'm interested in packaging a stripped version of mplayer, but I feel it would 
> be a waste of time if any package is refused due to legal reasons anyway. I 
> would, therefore, feel more comfortable if any legal issues could be resolved 
> before I start work on packaging. If a list of "bad" formats can not be given, 
> how about a list of "known good" ones? At least the ones currently included in 
> GStreamer should be OK, right?

Given that mplayer is already available in rpmfusion, I do not think
there is any merit in packaging a stripped version in Fedora, as it
would cause a conflict with rpmfusion.

I would argue that your energy might be better spent on properly
modularizing the codec support in mplayer, but having dealt with that
upstream in the past, I suspect your energy might be better spent not
working on mplayer at all.

~spot




From oget.fedora at gmail.com  Thu Oct 14 20:35:23 2010
From: oget.fedora at gmail.com (Orcan Ogetbil)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:35:23 -0400
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Reasons for not including MPlayer in main
	repository?
In-Reply-To: <4CB764EB.4050306@redhat.com>
References: <20101014103707.GE2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
	<20101014110135.GF2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
	<4CB71891.90102@redhat.com>
	<201010142230.03883.pafcu@iki.fi> <4CB764EB.4050306@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimhRMs-HNAYWKczo19W9_wfOL_dASPic244UQS9@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> Given that mplayer is already available in rpmfusion, I do not think
> there is any merit in packaging a stripped version in Fedora, as it
> would cause a conflict with rpmfusion.
>
> I would argue that your energy might be better spent on properly
> modularizing the codec support in mplayer, but having dealt with that
> upstream in the past, I suspect your energy might be better spent not
> working on mplayer at all.
>

These might be true. However there is no policy in Fedora to prohibit
packaging a legally acceptable version of mplayer.

Stefan asks the question "How?" but you are giving an advise by
answering the question "Should I?" or "Is it worth?". I am sure that
if Stefan needed this advise he would have asked for it.

So... "How?"

Orcan


From tcallawa at redhat.com  Thu Oct 14 20:53:25 2010
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:53:25 -0400
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Reasons for not including MPlayer in main
 repository?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimhRMs-HNAYWKczo19W9_wfOL_dASPic244UQS9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20101014103707.GE2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
	<20101014110135.GF2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
	<4CB71891.90102@redhat.com> <201010142230.03883.pafcu@iki.fi>
	<4CB764EB.4050306@redhat.com>
	<AANLkTimhRMs-HNAYWKczo19W9_wfOL_dASPic244UQS9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CB76DC5.5000609@redhat.com>

On 10/14/2010 04:35 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> Given that mplayer is already available in rpmfusion, I do not think
>> there is any merit in packaging a stripped version in Fedora, as it
>> would cause a conflict with rpmfusion.
>>
>> I would argue that your energy might be better spent on properly
>> modularizing the codec support in mplayer, but having dealt with that
>> upstream in the past, I suspect your energy might be better spent not
>> working on mplayer at all.
>>
> 
> These might be true. However there is no policy in Fedora to prohibit
> packaging a legally acceptable version of mplayer.
> 
> Stefan asks the question "How?" but you are giving an advise by
> answering the question "Should I?" or "Is it worth?". I am sure that
> if Stefan needed this advise he would have asked for it.
> 
> So... "How?"

Assuming that an mplayer package was generated that did not conflict
with the rpmfusion mplayer packages, I would be willing to audit it.

Unfortunately, I cannot say "take these codecs out" or "take these files
out". I can't even say that upon doing the audit, to be fair. The best I
could say is that "yes, this is okay for Fedora as-is" or "no, it is
not". I realize how frustrating that is, which is why I am trying very
hard to discourage this course of action.

The maintainer would need to completely remove the source code for
problematic codecs and functionality from the tarball, as it cannot
appear in the source package at all. This would essentially make this
version a fork of mplayer, which would be an additional burden on the
maintainer that he/she should be prepared to accept in advance.

Using the items which exist in Fedora in gstreamer would be a useful
place to start, when trying to determine what is acceptable and what is not.

For the TLDR folks: This is a bad idea.

~spot


From pafcu at iki.fi  Fri Oct 15 07:06:56 2010
From: pafcu at iki.fi (Stefan Parviainen)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:06:56 +0300
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Reasons for not including MPlayer in main
	repository?
In-Reply-To: <4CB76DC5.5000609@redhat.com>
References: <20101014103707.GE2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
	<20101014110135.GF2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
	<4CB71891.90102@redhat.com> <201010142230.03883.pafcu@iki.fi>
	<4CB764EB.4050306@redhat.com>
	<AANLkTimhRMs-HNAYWKczo19W9_wfOL_dASPic244UQS9@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CB76DC5.5000609@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20101015070656.GH2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 04:53:25PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> >> Given that mplayer is already available in rpmfusion, I do not think
> >> there is any merit in packaging a stripped version in Fedora, as it
> >> would cause a conflict with rpmfusion.

I find it curious that you are activly discouraging making "freer"
versions of software, and instead encourage the use of 3rd-party
repositories containing restricted software.

In addition to not having mplayer in the main repositories this also
makes it impossible to include software that depends on mplayer in the
main repos.

Since there seems to be so much opposition to my idea I will just have
to skip Fedora as a supported platform for my software (no, telling
people to install dependencies from some "random" 3rd party source is
not a good solution for me).

-- 
Stefan



From christofer.c.bell at gmail.com  Fri Oct 15 07:23:24 2010
From: christofer.c.bell at gmail.com (Christofer C. Bell)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 02:23:24 -0500
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Reasons for not including MPlayer in main
	repository?
In-Reply-To: <20101015070656.GH2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
References: <20101014103707.GE2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
	<20101014110135.GF2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
	<4CB71891.90102@redhat.com> <201010142230.03883.pafcu@iki.fi>
	<4CB764EB.4050306@redhat.com>
	<AANLkTimhRMs-HNAYWKczo19W9_wfOL_dASPic244UQS9@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CB76DC5.5000609@redhat.com>
	<20101015070656.GH2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikUUh0Svf43B5N8p=08Pd-9QaKtkB2pcp9y7ez+@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Stefan Parviainen <pafcu at iki.fi> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 04:53:25PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > >> Given that mplayer is already available in rpmfusion, I do not think
> > >> there is any merit in packaging a stripped version in Fedora, as it
> > >> would cause a conflict with rpmfusion.
>
> I find it curious that you are activly discouraging making "freer"
> versions of software, and instead encourage the use of 3rd-party
> repositories containing restricted software.

He's saying that to make a free version of mplayer renders the
software unmaintainable.  This is not an unreasonable position to
take.

> In addition to not having mplayer in the main repositories this also
> makes it impossible to include software that depends on mplayer in the
> main repos.

Yes, it does, and that's unfortunate.

> Since there seems to be so much opposition to my idea I will just have
> to skip Fedora as a supported platform for my software (no, telling
> people to install dependencies from some "random" 3rd party source is
> not a good solution for me).

RPMFusion is far from "some 'random' 3rd party source".  Many bona
fide Fedora maintainers work on RPMFusion.  Is there any reason you
can't contribute your software through RPMFusion?

Here's how you can get involved: http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors

--
Chris


From tcallawa at redhat.com  Fri Oct 15 18:43:15 2010
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 14:43:15 -0400
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Reasons for not including MPlayer in main
 repository?
In-Reply-To: <20101015070656.GH2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
References: <20101014103707.GE2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>	<20101014110135.GF2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>	<4CB71891.90102@redhat.com>
	<201010142230.03883.pafcu@iki.fi>	<4CB764EB.4050306@redhat.com>	<AANLkTimhRMs-HNAYWKczo19W9_wfOL_dASPic244UQS9@mail.gmail.com>	<4CB76DC5.5000609@redhat.com>
	<20101015070656.GH2243@entropy.acclab.helsinki.fi>
Message-ID: <4CB8A0C3.5030104@redhat.com>

On 10/15/2010 03:06 AM, Stefan Parviainen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 04:53:25PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>>>> Given that mplayer is already available in rpmfusion, I do not think
>>>> there is any merit in packaging a stripped version in Fedora, as it
>>>> would cause a conflict with rpmfusion.
> 
> I find it curious that you are activly discouraging making "freer"
> versions of software, and instead encourage the use of 3rd-party
> repositories containing restricted software.
> 
> In addition to not having mplayer in the main repositories this also
> makes it impossible to include software that depends on mplayer in the
> main repos.
> 
> Since there seems to be so much opposition to my idea I will just have
> to skip Fedora as a supported platform for my software (no, telling
> people to install dependencies from some "random" 3rd party source is
> not a good solution for me).

Have you considered using a sane framework like gstreamer, as opposed to
a monolithic clump like mplayer?

~spot



From christoph.wickert at googlemail.com  Mon Oct 18 22:20:13 2010
From: christoph.wickert at googlemail.com (Christoph Wickert)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 00:20:13 +0200
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal requirements for the Multi-Desktop Live
	media
Message-ID: <1287440413.4344.31.camel@hal900.localdomain>

We, the EMEA ambasadors plan to do a multi-desktop spin for Fedora 14.
This is a dual layer DVD with all desktop spins on it:
      * Desktop spin (a.k.a the spin that must not be called GNOME spin)
      * KDE Spin
      * LXDE Spin
      * Xfce Spin
      * Moblin Spin

in i686 and x86_64 (therefor we need to do dual layer). Everything is
tied together with a boot menu.

The board has said they would approve the spin and grant it the usage of
the Fedora trademark but
      * we must not refer to GNOME as GNOME but as the 'desktop'
      * they want it tested first.

We are fine with these two requirements, but on IRC Jesse indicated that
there might be other problems. Given that
      * the spin only consists of 100% Fedora packages
      * the spin only consists of approved Fedora spins
      * the board grants us the use of the Fedora trademark
      * we have download location for the image on Fedora infrastructure
      * we put a readme on the spin whith the download location of the
        SRPMs
are there any other legal requirements we need to take into account? If
so, please tell us ASAP.

We need to figure this out ASAP in order to have media for the Release
events. Any help and advice you can give us is highly appreciated.

Regards,
Christoph



From csvanefalk at spray.se  Wed Oct 20 17:03:30 2010
From: csvanefalk at spray.se (Christopher Svanefalk)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:03:30 -0700
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Packaging Mangler for Fedora
Message-ID: <8BDFF950070A4F4EB03D0A7B01858A3E@mail2world.com>

Hello all,
 
for those who have not heard of the project, Mangler ( www.mangler.org
<http://www.mangler.org> ) is an open-source client for Ventrilo, not
affiliated with Flagship Industries or the original Ventrilo client.
 
I was wondering if anybody from the Fedora team has examined this
project, and know whether there are any legal stumblingblocks to
packaging it with Fedora? It seems evident that the project has been
implemented by some kind of reverse-engineering, but the web page seems
to have little info on the matter. It does not seem as transparent as
other similar projects, such as Wine.
 
Any views on this?
 
Thanks for any and all info!
 
Kind regards,
 
Christopher Svanefalk,
student, Sweden.
 


<P><p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2" style="font-size:13.5px">_______________________________________________________________<BR>Hitta kärleken med hjälp av vårt matchningstest - <a href="http://spray.matchaffinity.se/?mtcmk=614114">Klicka här!</a></font>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20101020/848b48db/attachment.html>

From tcallawa at redhat.com  Wed Oct 20 18:25:40 2010
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:25:40 -0400
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Packaging Mangler for Fedora
In-Reply-To: <8BDFF950070A4F4EB03D0A7B01858A3E@mail2world.com>
References: <8BDFF950070A4F4EB03D0A7B01858A3E@mail2world.com>
Message-ID: <4CBF3424.4080401@redhat.com>

On 10/20/2010 01:03 PM, Christopher Svanefalk wrote:
> Hello all,
>  
> for those who have not heard of the project, Mangler (www.mangler.org
> <http://www.mangler.org>) is an open-source client for Ventrilo, not
> affiliated with Flagship Industries or the original Ventrilo client.
>  
> I was wondering if anybody from the Fedora team has examined this
> project, and know whether there are any legal stumblingblocks to
> packaging it with Fedora? It seems evident that the project has been
> implemented by some kind of reverse-engineering, but the web page seems
> to have little info on the matter. It does not seem as transparent as
> other similar projects, such as Wine.

I don't see any reason why it could not be packaged for Fedora at this time.

~spot


From guillermo.gomez at gmail.com  Thu Oct 21 19:59:46 2010
From: guillermo.gomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Guillermo_G=F3mez?=)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:29:46 -0430
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] LGPL exception
Message-ID: <4CC09BB2.50903@gmail.com>

I have the following LICENCE_ADDENDUM file in FOX source and need to 
know if i can move forward with it and package it.

krgds

Guillermo (Gomix)
------------------------
http://www.neotechgw.com
http://gomix.fedora-ve.org
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: LICENSE_ADDENDUM
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20101021/16caaa1b/attachment.ksh>

From tcallawa at redhat.com  Fri Oct 22 15:17:57 2010
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:17:57 -0400
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] LGPL exception
In-Reply-To: <4CC09BB2.50903@gmail.com>
References: <4CC09BB2.50903@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CC1AB25.9020608@redhat.com>

On 10/21/2010 03:59 PM, Guillermo Gómez wrote:
> I have the following LICENCE_ADDENDUM file in FOX source and need to
> know if i can move forward with it and package it.

Sure. Just use:

License: LGPLv2+ with exceptions

~spot


From dan at danny.cz  Fri Oct 22 15:42:07 2010
From: dan at danny.cz (Dan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hor=E1k?=)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:42:07 +0200
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] mixing (A)GPLv3+ and GPLv2 sources in a python
	project
Message-ID: <1287762127.3012.45.camel@eagle.danny.cz>

Hi,

I'm doing a review for OpenERP [1] client [2] and server [3], all
written in Python.

The client in version 6.0 uses AGPLv3+ for most of its files and GPLv2
for few of them (imported 3rd party library in
bin/SpiffGtkWidgets/Calendar). Is such mixing possible?

The client in version 5.x uses GPLv3+ for the majority of files, the
rest is the same GPLv2 which is in my opinion not possible.


Dan

[1] http://www.openerp.com/downloads
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641271
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641261




From tcallawa at redhat.com  Fri Oct 22 16:06:12 2010
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:06:12 -0400
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] mixing (A)GPLv3+ and GPLv2 sources in a
 python project
In-Reply-To: <1287762127.3012.45.camel@eagle.danny.cz>
References: <1287762127.3012.45.camel@eagle.danny.cz>
Message-ID: <4CC1B674.5010106@redhat.com>

On 10/22/2010 11:42 AM, Dan Horák wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm doing a review for OpenERP [1] client [2] and server [3], all
> written in Python.
> 
> The client in version 6.0 uses AGPLv3+ for most of its files and GPLv2
> for few of them (imported 3rd party library in
> bin/SpiffGtkWidgets/Calendar). Is such mixing possible?
> 
> The client in version 5.x uses GPLv3+ for the majority of files, the
> rest is the same GPLv2 which is in my opinion not possible.

Assuming you mean GPLv2 only, the answer is that both situations have
compatibility problems. You should ask upstream to try to resolve the
incompatibilities. The simplest way to do so would be to relicense the
GPLv2 only files to GPLv2 or later (Note: You'll probably end up talking
to both the OpenERP upstream and the 3rd party upstream).

~spot


From dan at danny.cz  Fri Oct 22 16:14:01 2010
From: dan at danny.cz (Dan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hor=E1k?=)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:14:01 +0200
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] mixing (A)GPLv3+ and GPLv2 sources in a
 python project
In-Reply-To: <4CC1B674.5010106@redhat.com>
References: <1287762127.3012.45.camel@eagle.danny.cz>
	<4CC1B674.5010106@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1287764041.3012.50.camel@eagle.danny.cz>

Tom "spot" Callaway píše v Pá 22. 10. 2010 v 12:06 -0400: 
> On 10/22/2010 11:42 AM, Dan Horák wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'm doing a review for OpenERP [1] client [2] and server [3], all
> > written in Python.
> > 
> > The client in version 6.0 uses AGPLv3+ for most of its files and GPLv2
> > for few of them (imported 3rd party library in
> > bin/SpiffGtkWidgets/Calendar). Is such mixing possible?
> > 
> > The client in version 5.x uses GPLv3+ for the majority of files, the
> > rest is the same GPLv2 which is in my opinion not possible.
> 
> Assuming you mean GPLv2 only, the answer is that both situations have
> compatibility problems. You should ask upstream to try to resolve the
> incompatibilities. The simplest way to do so would be to relicense the
> GPLv2 only files to GPLv2 or later (Note: You'll probably end up talking
> to both the OpenERP upstream and the 3rd party upstream).

thanks, Tom

yes, it's GPLv2 only and to tell the truth I didn't expect such problem
in this project


Dan




From johannbg at gmail.com  Fri Oct 29 13:57:06 2010
From: johannbg at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=F3hann_B=2E_Gu=F0mundsson=22?=)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:57:06 +0000
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Verifying Fedora from unofficial remixes that
 have removed the Fedora trademarks
Message-ID: <4CCAD2B2.5060909@gmail.com>

Greetings.

So I've been wondering how we can measure usage of Fedora vs unofficial 
remixes that have removed the Fedora Trademarks and while speaking with 
Seth regarding one of the ideas I had on how we could potentially 
implement this he pointed it out to me that we might be legally 
prohibited to gather this information with or without explicit user 
consent and forwarded me to you guys to straighten this out.

So my question to you guys is.

Is there anything legally prohibiting or restricting us on verifying and 
gather information if users are running Fedora or are running some 
unofficial remix that have removed the Fedora trademarks?

If the answer is yes.

What are we allowed to do?

What are we not allowed to do?

If we are not allowed to gather this data in anyway or form can the 
unofficial remix be legally bound to notify us of their existence and or 
provide us with that data so we could have some kind of an idea on how 
many remixes are out there which Fedora is "upstream" for?

Regards
               JBG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20101029/9842b817/attachment.html>

From tcallawa at redhat.com  Sat Oct 30 12:52:41 2010
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway)
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:52:41 -0400
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Verifying Fedora from unofficial remixes
 that have removed the Fedora trademarks
In-Reply-To: <4CCAD2B2.5060909@gmail.com>
References: <4CCAD2B2.5060909@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CCC1519.8000806@redhat.com>

On 10/29/2010 09:57 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Is there anything legally prohibiting or restricting us on verifying and
> gather information if users are running Fedora or are running some
> unofficial remix that have removed the Fedora trademarks?

It is difficult/impossible to answer this question without specifics on
implementation. This may seem a bit opposite from what you've asked for,
but it is how lawyers prefer to work.

Let me instead say the following:

Smolt already records the OS/Distro when users opt-in. I assume it looks
in /etc/redhat-release or /etc/fedora-release (and other places for
non-Fedora/Red Hat distros).

It is fine to look at the Smolt counts to guestimate how many remixes
are out there, with the understanding that some remixes may not be using
Smolt.

If you have another specific proposal, I'd be willing to look it over.

> If we are not allowed to gather this data in anyway or form can the
> unofficial remix be legally bound to notify us of their existence and or
> provide us with that data so we could have some kind of an idea on how
> many remixes are out there which Fedora is "upstream" for?

I am unaware of any existing requirement that remixes "notify" anyone of
their existence. It is likely that if we attempted to impose such a
requirement upon modification of Fedora, it would conflict with the Free
Software licensing that Fedora is built on. FWIW, I do not see the merit
of any such requirement, except to make it more difficult for remixes to
exist. Unless a remix is using the Fedora trademarks outside of the
Trademark Usage Guidelines, my inclination is to simply let them do what
they wish.

~spot


From johannbg at gmail.com  Sat Oct 30 14:47:22 2010
From: johannbg at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=F3hann_B=2E_Gu=F0mundsson=22?=)
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 14:47:22 +0000
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Verifying Fedora from unofficial remixes
 that have removed the Fedora trademarks
In-Reply-To: <4CCC1519.8000806@redhat.com>
References: <4CCAD2B2.5060909@gmail.com> <4CCC1519.8000806@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <4CCC2FFA.4060504@gmail.com>

On 10/30/2010 12:52 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> It is difficult/impossible to answer this question without specifics on
> implementation. This may seem a bit opposite from what you've asked for,
> but it is how lawyers prefer to work.

Via updates was what I was thinking either a check or setting up 
Fedora/Generic/<insert registered remix> Channel something similar to 
Red Hat channel basically.

Preferable a solution the user would not have to opt in about... ( Those 
only give the half of the picture at best )

The end goal here simply for us being able to measure and gather 
statistic for various purposes on Fedora vs Unofficial remixes.

As things stand now we cant even say how many remixes are out there nor 
how much of Fedora's overall stats and success belongs to them thus for 
example no way for us to do some research in what they are doing right 
and we are doing wrong or how much these remixes contribute back to 
Fedora and so on and so fourth simply because we have no way of telling 
that.

JBG