legal March 2009

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

26 participants
29 discussions

question about patent
by robert song 25 Mar '09

25 Mar '09

Hello, everyone. Now I am using Pettis-Hansen method as follows to reorder functions. http://www.cs.virginia.edu/kim/courses/cs771/papers/pettis90profile.pdf But I found that the algorithm has its patent as below. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0459192.html So if I use this algorithm in my codes, it will infringe the HP patent. Does it mean that this algorithm can not be used in codes ? Is there any method to solve this problem ? Best wishes, robert

2 1

media metadata parsing/editing
by Rex Dieter 23 Mar '09

23 Mar '09

The amarok project includes code that parses metadata/tags for various media formats, including asf, audiofile(?), mp4, rm, wav. no decoding/demuxing is involved. In particular, this affects a new amarok dependency, recently submitted for review, taglib-extras: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/491647 I know I asked spot awhile back(1), but I'd like it reviewed publically... (esp for the benefit of amarok upstream and other distros considering including this) -- Rex (1) My recollection was to (at least) not touch asf with a 10-foot pole.

1 2

how artistic is this license?
by Orcan Ogetbil 23 Mar '09

23 Mar '09

While I was packaging frinika [1], I realized that one of its dependencies, mrjadapter [2], comes with some "Artistic License" [3]. I can't tell what version of "Artistic License" this is. Can you tell me if this is free or not; and if not, can you tell me what makes it nonfree so I can inform frinika developers about it? Thanks, Orcan [1] http://frinika.appspot.com/ [2] http://homepage.mac.com/sroy/mrjadapter/ [3] http://homepage.mac.com/sroy/artisticlicense.html

2 1

"Microsoft TrueType Fonts" a Good Licence?
by Thomas Spura 21 Mar '09

21 Mar '09

Hi, I need to know, if "Microsoft TrueType Fonts" are a Good Licence in order to allow packaging from ROOT (http://root.cern.ch). It is not on page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing so I ask this list. A copy of the licence is there: http://fontconfig.org/webfonts/Licen.TXT Thanks in advance, Thomas

2 1

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Heads-up on new Samba4 licence
by Tom Callaway 20 Mar '09

20 Mar '09

On 03/19/2009 10:23 PM, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > Is there a particular licence tag I should use to indicate the presence > of this content under it's different licence? No. ~spot

1 0

[Fwd: Re: MPEG-1 read support]
by Rahul Sundaram 17 Mar '09

17 Mar '09

Hi, Something to look at

2 1

Linking vs writing about software
by Rahul Sundaram 14 Mar '09

14 Mar '09

Hi Let's say I add some details about creating a movie DVD for home users, I am allowed to do that in the Fedora wiki assuming I don't link to any other website? Rahul

1 0

Changing a license on source with nonresponsive or gone author
by Ray Van Dolson 12 Mar '09

12 Mar '09

Hi all; This is in regards to an attempt to package figlet[1] for Fedora. It turns out that part of this package[2] is under a non-free license. Attempts to contact the author of this code have been thus far unsuccessful, and I'm wondering as to the best way to proceed. The license currently in place on these files indicate that any changes to the code needs to be emailed to the original author within 30 days. Would this cover licensing changes as well? I'm wondering if we could just change the license on this code, notify the author via the email address provided and call it good (the author's email address isn't bouncing, but appears to be inactive). Another alternative would be to have upstream replace the code with sufficiently free code, or to remove the functionality completely. I am also considering patching out the non-free code myself (since upstream doesn't really have an active maintainer right now as figlet has been pretty stable for years) and doing the release that way. The functionality in question is for decompressing font files which we could easily live without. Could I get some thoughts on the above from this list? Thanks, Ray [1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489830 [2]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489830#c8

4 3

Openstreetmap moving to Open Database License (ODbL)
by Andrea Musuruane 09 Mar '09

09 Mar '09

Hi, Openstreetmap project is about to change their license from CC-BY-SA to ODbL: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001958.ht… http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Database_License The Openstreetmap foundation has opened a discussion about the license. It will end on March, 20th. It intends to publish the definitive license on March, 28th. Therefore I'd like to know if this license would permit to include Openstreetmap contents (e.g. maps) in the Fedora Project or if it has some problems. I think that it would be very useful if problems could arise now that the license is not yet released or used. Bye, Andrea.

3 3

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] "content" in source tarball
by Tom Callaway 06 Mar '09

06 Mar '09

On 03/06/2009 02:14 PM, Christian Krause wrote: > I'm a little bit afraid to violate this rule: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Code_Vs_Content > > especially "All content is subject to review by FESCo, who has the final > say on whether or not it can be included." etc. That just means that FESCo reserves judgement over what is and is not acceptable content. Learning content like you describe would be permissable in the package as long as it is not religious or pornographic. > Would it be necessary to get the content files reviewed in the following > scenario: > > - src.rpm/tarball contains content under GPL > - binary rpm does not Well, we'd still be distributing the content (via the SRPM), so yes, FESCo would still have oversight. ~spot

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal March 2009