legal August 2008

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

10 participants
9 discussions

How to note 'GPLv3 with options taken'?
by Andrew Bartlett 29 Aug '08

29 Aug '08

The GPLv3 allows certain options to be taken, so that it becomes compatible with a number of other licences, such as BSD varients. Samba4 includes a number of pieces of such code in the form of Heimdal (a Kerberos implementation we currently have bundled), do I have to do make some special note (other than complying with the restrictions, by including copyright notices in the docs)? Thanks, Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.

3 5

Re: [Fedora-spins] rpmfusion based spin
by Paul W. Frields 26 Aug '08

26 Aug '08

Also CC'ing the Fedora legal list which is also concerned with issues like the trademark guidelines. Paul On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 17:16 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > CC'ing the Fedora Spins SIG mailing list as this concerns most of the > subscribers there as well. > > KH KH wrote: > > 2008/8/26 Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)gmail.com>: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I have been keep a tab on rpmfusion progress by reading the archives and it > >> seems the repository is getting reading for launch soon. Congrats on that. > >> > >> My primary interest here at the moment is creating a spin based on rpmfusion > >> and Fedora which Thorsten Leemhuis mentioned as desirable in one of his > >> earlier mails to this list. > > I don't know if Thorsten ever mention such "spin" but having both > > rpmfusion and fedora on the same media is a very hard legal issue. > > Actually that's even not possible at all without removing the name > > Fedora from such spin. (meaning removing artworks and some others > > packages i don't remember). > > FWIW, if RPMFusion wishes to provide and distribute their own version of > Fedora, including whatever packages not in Fedora, either Free or free > or not free at all, right now this is enough: > > %packages > # Remove the fedora-logos package and include something without > # Fedora trademarked material > -fedora-logos > generic-logos (or: rpmfusion-logos if you have the artwork) > # Include rpmfusion-release as well > rpmfusion-release > %end > > %post > # Substitute the Fedora name in /etc/fedora-release and /etc/issue, > # which are both owned by package fedora-release, so that it doesn't > # pop up in all kinds of weird places such as when booting the machine > # ("Welcome to .... Press I to start interactive ..." comes to mind). > # Note that _all_ trademarks are supposed to be in fedora-logos. > sed -i -e 's/Fedora/RPMFusion/g' /etc/fedora-release /etc/issue > %end > > And you're done. > > > To be more accurate: You can do such spins for yourself (either with > > free only or with nonfree packages), but you cannot redistribute the > > spin telling it is Fedora. (because it won't be fedora anymore). But > > you can (have to ?) tell this work is based (derived?) on Fedora. > > > > This (being able to say "based on Fedora") is pending the new trademark > policy at > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/NewTrademarkGuidelines > > I hope this clarifies some of the issues wrt. a RPMFusion spin. > > Kind regards, > > Jeroen van Meeuwen > -kanarip > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-spins mailing list > Fedora-spins(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-spins

2 2

NVIDIA license
by Mamoru Tasaka 25 Aug '08

25 Aug '08

Hello, all: Now I am trying to review rsssserver (bug 450409). First I checked the license issue of this package, then I found some of the codes are licensed under the below: /*********************************************************************NVMH1**** File: nv_algebra.h Copyright (C) 1999, 2002 NVIDIA Corporation This file is provided without support, instruction, or implied warranty of any kind. NVIDIA makes no guarantee of its fitness for a particular purpose and is not liable under any circumstances for any damages or loss whatsoever arising from the use or inability to use this file or items derived from it. Comments: ******************************************************************************/ Is this license allowed for Fedora? (if so, is this GPLv2 compatible?) Regards, Mamoru

3 3

New BSD variant?
by Jason L Tibbitts III 21 Aug '08

21 Aug '08

Could someone confirm that the following license is simply a 3-clause BSD variant? Thanks, - J< License Terms and Conditions Copyright (C) 2001-2003 American Radio Relay League, Inc. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Any redistribution of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the disclaimer shown in Paragraph 5 (below). 2. Redistribution in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the disclaimer shown in Paragraph 5 (below) in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. Products derived from or including this software may not use "Logbook of the World" or "LoTW" or any other American Radio Relay League, Incorporated trademarks or servicemarks in their names without prior written permission of the ARRL. See Paragraph 6 (below) for contact information. 4. Use of this software does not imply endorsement by ARRL of products derived from or including this software and vendors may not claim such endorsement. 5. Disclaimer: This software is provided "as-is" without representation, guarantee or warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability or of fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the software is solely with you. Should the software prove defective, you (and not the American Radio Relay League, its officers, directors, employees or agents) assume the entire cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction. In no event will ARRL be liable to you or to any third party for any damages, whether direct or indirect, including lost profits, lost savings, or other incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use or inability to use such software, regardless of whether ARRL has been advised of the possibility of such damages. 6. Contact information: American Radio Relay League, Inc. Attn: Logbook of the World Manager 225 Main St Newington, CT 06111 voice: 860-594-0200 fax: 860-594-0259 email: logbook(a)arrl.org Worldwide Web: www.arrl.org This software consists of voluntary contributions made by many individuals on behalf of the ARRL. More information on the "Logbook of The World" project and the ARRL is available from the ARRL Web site at www.arrl.org.

1 0

Packaging DansGuardian
by Sayamindu Dasgupta 19 Aug '08

19 Aug '08

Hello, The upstream Dansguardian website says " Before downloading, please read the copyright for DansGuardian 2. DansGuardian is not free to download from this website for commercial use. " However, the software itself is GPL-ed (as per the LICENSE file in the source tarball). Will there be any issue if it is packaged for and distributed with Fedora ? There's an open review request at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458643 Thanks, Sayamindu -- Sayamindu Dasgupta [http://sayamindu.randomink.org/ramblings]

1 0

CeCILL-C license versus CeCILL for packaging Alt-Ergo theorem prover
by Alan Dunn 18 Aug '08

18 Aug '08

I'm hoping to package the Alt-Ergo automated theorem prover (http://ergo.lri.fr) for use in Fedora. It appears that they have released this software under the CeCILL-C license, which is not one of those listed on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses The main CeCILL (v2) license is listed as approved, but the CeCILL-C is unlisted. Can someone tell me if this other license (which is also available at http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html) will pose a problem? - Alan Dunn

2 1

Home-made LiveCD licensing question
by Tính Trương Xuân 18 Aug '08

18 Aug '08

Hello everyone, I have a question about licensing of the home-made livecd of Fedora. I create a custom livecd of Fedora 9 with my commercial application (proprietary) on it. This CD serves as a demo CD for my potential customers, and I intend to redistribute these CDs widely. Am I legal to do this? Thanks and best regards, Tinh

2 1

Trusting upstream website when code has no license
by Jason L Tibbitts III 15 Aug '08

15 Aug '08

This may be a FAQ, but searching didn't turn it up. If it's not already documented, perhaps we could get it into the FAQ page because this question comes up often enough when doing package reviews. The problem is code which has no license information at all. Sometimes there are copyright notices, sometimes not, and no mention whatsoever of any type of license. However, there's a mention of a license at the upstream web site. Now, obviously upstream should be prodded to get with the program. But in the interim, is it sufficient to simply refer to the upstream web site? Keep a copy of it in the package (in case they decide to change it for some reason)? Or should this kind of software be avoided entirely until upstream decides to release a version with a properly included license? - J<

2 3

Open CASCADE Technology Public License
by Dan Horák 01 Aug '08

01 Aug '08

Hi, can you give me "Fedora acceptability statement" for the Open CASCADE Technology Public License available at http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ ? Thanks Dan PS: first copy of this mail is moderator's queue since Friday -- Fedora and Red Hat package maintainer

1 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal August 2008