legal September 2008

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

16 participants
12 discussions

license for apt-mirror
by Simon Wesp 29 Sep '08

29 Sep '08

Hi, i started a package review request for "apt mirror" a apt sources mirroring tool. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464308 I took the GPLv2 license tag from the debian package, because i found no informations about license in the source or on the homepage. the first debianisation was with version 0.3.0 and the package author (the same as the upstream author) declare the license as gplv2. he is still the debian maintainer of this package and the license never changed. copyright information from package 0.3.0: - This package was debianized by Dmitry N. Hramtsov <hdn(a)nsu.ru> on Sat, 27 Jul 2002 12:44:33 +0700. It was downloaded from http://apt-mirror.sourceforge.net/ Upstream Author(s): Dmitry N. Hramtsov <hdn(a)nsu.ru> Copyright: GPLv2 - copyright information of 0.4.5 (current version) http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/apt-mirror/apt-mirror_0.4… what should i do? -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen aus dem schönen Hainzell Simon Wesp

2 1

SGI Further Opens its OpenGL Contributions
by Rahul Sundaram 22 Sep '08

22 Sep '08

Hi, I think this is relevant here. http://lwn.net/Articles/299429/ "SGI has announced it is releasing a new version of the SGI Free Software License B. The license, which now mirrors the free X11 license used by X.Org, further opens previously released SGI graphics software, including the SGI OpenGL Sample Implementation, the GLX API and other GLX extensions." Rahul

4 5

Orange Sombrero 9 Released - based on Fedora
by Jeroen van Meeuwen 20 Sep '08

20 Sep '08

One more Software Freedom Day well spent ;-) I'm proud to announce a new minor player in the world of insignificant clones of major, important Free and Open Source Linux Distributions, *bling* Orange Sombrero - /based on Fedora/ *bling* Orange Sombrero starts with releasing version number 9 - the same version number as the upstream distribution, Fedora, to avoid confusion. Has anything been changed? Yeah, a patch to anaconda[1,2] that didn't make it in in time for the Fedora 10 Beta freeze has been applied to compose this release -which is sort of the entire use case behind the patch anyway. Also, a different branch of Revisor has been used that uses the patch to anaconda[3]. Since I've got limited bandwidth and disk space, this is a 1 CD distribution. If I had bandwidth and disk space, I might have thrown in a mid-release Everything Spin but I couldn't. Also, given that this is a 1 CD distribution, I've added an install class to anaconda so that it selects the correct groups of packages. Who needs "Office & Productivity" if there's only @core and @base, right? "Base System" FTW! It was fun, it took me 4 koji scratch builds of anaconda and another number of composes to get it "right". Note that despite these changes the installed system will behave just the same as Fedora. In fact, if you look really hard, there's the occasional "Fedora" in there, still -maybe that's because I used fedora-release, which I should be able to do without trademark violations, even though /etc/fedora-release still says "Fedora" ;-) Why bother? Trademark guidelines right now say a derivative distribution cannot use "based on Fedora" -which is bad, and Orange Sombrero is now raising some red flags about it. Work is well on it's way to improve that situation[4] though, for which I thank everyone involved. I hope soon, very soon, derivative's of Fedora pop up everywhere, like mushrooms in autumn. Where is it? http://orangesombrero.org (torrents) On behalf of the entire Orange Sombrero Community (e.g. ~1 person), Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip [1] http://tinyurl.com/49eq5n [2] http://tinyurl.com/47v38s [3] http://tinyurl.com/4le262 [4] http://tinyurl.com/6d3ykf

1 0

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 BR
by Mamoru Tasaka 18 Sep '08

18 Sep '08

Hello. Now I am trying to review bug 443238. In the source tarball one JPG file is licensed under: "Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 BR" (not 3.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/br/ Can I use "CC-BY" license tag for this license? Regards, Mamoru

2 1

A couple of license-relate questions
by Vasile Gaburici 15 Sep '08

15 Sep '08

1) If some files of a program are BSD and some are GPLv2, is it necessary to include the BSD license file in the rpm package (even if upstream doesn't)? 2) Can someone take a look at the Adobe Glyph List license [http://www.adobe.com/devnet/opentype/archives/glyphlist.txt] and determine what is the appropriate rpm license field for it? If you want more context, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458430 Thanks, Vasile

2 4

Metasploit Framework License (Is it ok for Fedora?)
by Conrad Meyer 15 Sep '08

15 Sep '08

Is this license ok for a package in Fedora (i.e. metasploit)? The full text can be found here[0]. [0]: http://metasploit.com/svn/framework3/trunk/documentation/LICENSE PS: I'm not subscribed to fedora-legal so please CC replies to me. Regards, -- Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org>

3 8

Teeworlds License
by Florent Le Coz 13 Sep '08

13 Sep '08

(this message may already have been posted, if it has, I apologize) hi, I wanted to propose a package for the teeworlds game, but the problem is that the license may not be suitable for fedora. In fact, problems are that it's a no-name license (so I don't know how to name it in the spec file, but it's a detail), AND that it's really unclear. Here it is : http://teeworlds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=957 A discussion about this license takes place in this page, here is a little summary: - according to the main dev: in point 4, "as itself" means that it can be sold (as a part of a distribution, or a magazine, or a software compilation, but NOT ON ITS OWN) - also according to the main dev: this license was discussed with a fedora-legal person... ("This license was discussed in great length and input were taken from some fedora legal guy (can't remember the name).") (read the discussion for more details) So, my question is: is this license Free (I think it is, but I wanted an expert advice) and this software can be included in fedora ? If not, what exactly make this license non-free ? If yes, how should I name this license (for the package) ? Thank you,

2 2

Add "GPL + Classpath Exception" to the Good Licences list?
by Sean Flanigan 12 Sep '08

12 Sep '08

Since IcedTea/OpenJDK is part of Fedora 9, I presume that GPL + Classpath Exception is a good licence, but I can't find it in the list here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses -- Sean Flanigan Senior Software Engineer Engineering - Internationalisation Red Hat

2 1

Metasploit Framework License (Is it ok for Fedora?)
by Conrad Meyer 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

2 1

Re: using public domain documents in fedorahosted projects
by Paul W. Frields 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 07:55 +1000, Murray McAllister wrote: > Hi, > > <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/CLA> states: > > '7. Should you wish to submit work that is not your original creation, > you may submit it to the Project separately from any Contribution, > identifying the complete details of its source and of any license or > other restriction (including, but not limited to, related patents, > trademarks, and license agreements) of which you are personally aware, > and conspicuously marking the work as "Submitted on behalf of a > third-party: [named here] ". ' > > Does this apply to fedorahosted projects as well? Does this mean I can > not use/copy+paste text from a public domain document (even if it is > cited) if it is going to be stored on fedorahosted? This probably belongs on fedora-legal-list; moving the discussion there. Certainly there is nothing actually *barring* you from submitting a public domain work, and the CLA is not intended to do that either. I think the intent of this paragraph is to ensure contributors meet their obligations when submitting work that has some sort of restrictive license attached, and the contributor isn't also copyright holder. We are working on a draft for a new and clearer CLA, so if nothing else this is a point we should be addressing therein. -- Paul W. Frields ("IANAL, TINLA, blah blah blah.") gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal September 2008