legal May 2009

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

20 participants
18 discussions

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CAcert.org license
by Tom Callaway 12 Feb '16

12 Feb '16

On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 23:03 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote: > > >>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway <Tom> writes: > > > > TC> Given that it does not give permission for us to redistribute (the > > TC> cornerstone requirement for Content licenses), this license is not > > TC> acceptable for Fedora. > > > > I guess I'm glad I looked before approving the package, but I have to > > wonder: Do the cacert folks actually want anyone to use their > > certificates? I mean, this prevents basically everyone from using > > them, because they can't come with the OS or the browser. > > Personally, the more I read the document, the more I'm confused. > > "You may NOT distribute certificates or root keys under this > licence"... does this mean we can distribute under a different license? Well, sortof. The wording here is strange because you can get a different license from the CA issuer. We can't just pick a license, but the CA issuer might be willing to give us a different one. > Would it be worth getting in contact with CAcert.org in order to try > and have them allow us to redistribute the root certs under conditions > which are acceptable to the Fedora Project? Probably, yes. :) ~spot

4 6

EUPL v1.1 ?
by Caolán McNamara 29 May '09

29 May '09

On this list previously the EUPL v1.0 was considered unacceptable for Fedora, (http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-legal-list@redhat.com/msg00144.html) Since then, there is now a EUPL v1.1, http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl does that fix the problems, or remain unacceptable ? Assuming that the EUPL v1.1 remains unacceptable, can someone e.g. dual licence something as EUPL v1.X and say LGPLv2 in order to make it acceptable for us. C.

2 1

Re: Wikipedia license change
by Paul W. Frields 29 May '09

29 May '09

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:05:54AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 05/27/2009 12:00 AM, Ben Cotton wrote: > >> The OPL has served us very well for a long time, I'm sad to see us > >> move from it, but at this point the writing is clear. We gain a lot > >> by going with a proper CC license. > >> > > Pardon my noobness, but what is it that we gain? I don't have any > > objections to changing per se, but I'd like to know what the argument > > is before I support it. :-) > > Discussions starting at > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-April/msg00061.html > > Short version: CC BY SA is a much more widely used license allowing for > more sharing of content and it is better known and understood as well. Let's make sure we keep our various legal minds roped in. I know that Spot mentioned Red Hat Legal may be very much in favor of going with CC BY-SA, so that may a problem solved before we had it. :-) -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug

5 6

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] EUPL v1.1 ?
by Luis Villa 29 May '09

29 May '09

I have not looked at the final draft, but as I understand it the purpose of issuing eupl 1.1 was to make it osi compliant. So it *should* be good now. Luis On May 29, 2009 9:35 AM, "Caolán McNamara" <caolanm(a)redhat.com> wrote: On this list previously the EUPL v1.0 was considered unacceptable for Fedora, (http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-legal-list@redhat.com/msg00144.html) Since then, there is now a EUPL v1.1, http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl does that fix the problems, or remain unacceptable ? Assuming that the EUPL v1.1 remains unacceptable, can someone e.g. dual licence something as EUPL v1.X and say LGPLv2 in order to make it acceptable for us. C. _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list

1 0

CATS Public License 1.1 a
by Rahul Sundaram 26 May '09

26 May '09

Hi http://fpaste.org/paste/13016 The later versions of this software is now proprietary but the older versions have this modified version of MPL. Please review. Rahul

2 1

Font license - free?
by Rahul Sundaram 25 May '09

25 May '09

Hi Is this font license considered free for Fedora? http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com/aksharyogini.html Rahul

2 1

Donations Link
by Richard Stitz 18 May '09

18 May '09

Hello, I am starting a web-based computer retail store, selling computer systems that have Linux pre-configured. I want to offer Fedora 10 (eventually 11), Ubuntu LTS and possibly a couple more distros to choose from. The website is www.stitzcomputers.com and I need to ask a couple of legal questions. Does Fedora accept donations, and if so, where can I find a URL to put on my site for this? Also, I will donate a part of every system sale ($10 USD) to the distro that the customer chooses to be installed on his/her system. Can I use the Fedora logo on my website for the purpose of promoting my product and linking back to Fedora websites? Although I am not charging for Linux directly, one could argue that I will profit from each distro offered because it essentially becomes part of the product that I am selling for a profit. Do I need permission from Fedora before I can offer Fedora to be pre-installed on my computer systems? What level of support for the distro do I need to offer? Can I count on the Fedora Forums to offer the support my customers will undoubtedly need? I am going to need to take advantage of any exposure my company can get, so with this in mind, is there any means of advertising on your sites or getting mentioned (and linked) here as a provider of Fedora-based systems? Can I offer Red Hat Enterprise Linux as well, and what would be the benefits to my customers? Thanks in advance for your time and attention devoted to this matter, I'll look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Richard Stitz richard(a)stitzweb.com www.stitzcomputers.com

3 2

A couple of wiki page issues
by Jerry James 18 May '09

18 May '09

Here are a couple of wiki page items I bumped into while checking some licenses. First, the "Sun Public License" link from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing leads to a fairly unhelpful page: http://www.netbeans.org/about/legal/spl.html. Second, there is yet another case of broken HTML in an "AS IS" clause, this time in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style_with_legal_disclaime…. I've found so many of those, I think I should get a pat on the back. -- Jerry James, who would rather have a pat than a monkey http://www.jamezone.org/

2 1

[Fwd: mono, not just moonlight]
by Rahul Sundaram 15 May '09

15 May '09

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: mono, not just moonlight Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:44:07 -0700 From: lee johnson <neighborlee(a)gmail.com> To: webmaster(a)fedoraproject.org hi there. >From what I see on groklaw etal,, the same risks apply to mono as does moonlight , ie: patents. IF so , page needs to change to reflect that mono is also not allowed in. I shall keep an eye out on this, and thx for your help. thx lee -- http://heartseed.sf.net -- Fedora-websites-list mailing list Fedora-websites-list(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-websites-list

2 1

CEPL license - acceptable?
by Rahul Sundaram 14 May '09

14 May '09

Hi It is a MPL variant but I would like legal to review the variations. http://www.celtx.com/CePL/ Rahul

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal May 2009