legal August 2010

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

9 participants
8 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

Export Compliance Classifcaiton (ECCN)
by Takovich, Susan (IS) 19 Aug '10

19 Aug '10

Hello, I am looking for the ECCN numbers for the below software: Fedora 11 Fedora 12 Please advise. Regards, Sue Takovich International Trade Compliance Analyst Northrop Grumman Information Systems - ISD Ph: 410-953-6651 Fax: 410-953-6515

3 2

font licensing
by François Cami 17 Aug '10

17 Aug '10

Hi, Please note than I am very far from being a lawyer. I would like to package a particular font for cultural reasons. Its glyphs can be used to render two languages and it has been created on behalf of an official government body for cultural purposes. That body is distributing it through its website. Unfortunately, the archive does not contain any licensing information. I emailed that particular government, and got a reply saying the font was "was developed for free distribution" and that the government "(allows the) public to freely download. It is copyrighted to <insert government body here>". I have read the licensing guidelines for fonts and I am aware that is not sufficient, as IIRC that means the font cannot be modified, and probably cannot be distributed by third parties. Am I right in believing this? I have asked them to add a copyright notice and a license to the zip file, preferably (of course) the SIL Open Font License 1.1. Any advice would be nice. Thanks, François

2 2

avant-window-navigitor patents?
by Kevin Fenzi 09 Aug '10

09 Aug '10

Greetings. Some folks were telling me that they thought that our avant-window-navigator package might be infringing on: US patent 7434177 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=7,434,177 http://www.wikipatents.com/US-Patent-7434177/user-interface-for-providing-c… Any thoughts on this? I don't see mention of it in the review for the package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=238863 Does the patent only deal with the "Zoom" functionality? Or is there just anything that lists a bunch of icons? kevin

3 3

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Teeworlds license has been updated
by Florent Le Coz 06 Aug '10

06 Aug '10

On 06/08/2010 15:01, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > Thanks for the update, the pages have been updated accordingly. > > ~spot Thank you. Just a little precision, the wiki now reads: > Older versions of this license (prior to Teeworlds 0.5.2) contained an > additional clause: > I talked about the 0.5.2 version because it's the version included in fedora. But the license was in fact changed in the 0.5.0 release[1] (the last version having the 4th clause in its license is teeworlds version 0.4.3 [2]) So, to be even clearer, the wiki page should read: > > Older versions of this license (prior to Teeworlds 0.5.0) contained an > additional clause: > (you can check yourself the license.txt file contained in the sources, if you want (I just did)) [1] http://teeworlds.com/files/teeworlds-0.5.0-linux_x86.tar.gz [2] http://teeworlds.com/files/teeworlds-0.4.3-linux_x86.tar.gz Regards, -- Florent Le Coz

2 1

Teeworlds license has been updated
by Florent Le Coz 06 Aug '10

06 Aug '10

Hello, The license of Teeworlds (http://teeworlds.com) contained in the page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Teeworlds is out of date. It has been updated, and in the 0.5.2 version (which is the version included in fedora's repositories) is now as follow: license.txt (included in the original sources, and as %doc in the fedora rpm) > Copyright (C) 2007-2008 Magnus Auvinen > > This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied > warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages > arising from the use of this software. > > Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, > including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it > freely, subject to the following restrictions: > > 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not > claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software > in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be > appreciated but is not required. > 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be > misrepresented as being the original software. > 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution. The issue described in the wiki page about this license is then not longer of a concern since the clause 4 has been removed. This page should be updated, and the description changed (or removed). Also, in the license list page (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Software_License_List), the "FSF Free?" column is "Yes, but only for teeworlds", though it should now be "Yes". Regards, -- Florent Le Coz

1 0

Is Export List up to Date?
by Frank Murphy 03 Aug '10

03 Aug '10

"Embargoed Destinations" Is this up to date, as the last release I see mentioned is F12? on the end of the page. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Export -- Regards, Frank Murphy UTF_8 Encoded Friend of Fedora

2 1

itext AGPL licensing
by Richard Fontana 03 Aug '10

03 Aug '10

itext is currently packaged in Fedora. The license is given in the package metadata as (LGPLv2+ or MPLv1.1) and ASL 2.0 and BSD and LGPLv2+. As of version 5.0.0, the project has relicensed to AGPLv3. The project says at http://itextpdf.com/terms-of-use/index.php, and in source code notices: In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public License, you must retain the producer line in every PDF that is created or manipulated using iText. This is an additional restriction that is not authorized by section 7 of AGPLv3. Possibly also of concern is the statement: You can be released from the requirements of the license by purchasing a commercial license. Buying such a license is mandatory as soon as you develop commercial activities involving the iText software without disclosing the source code of your own applications. While the examples given might generally trigger the AGPL source code distribution requirement, surely there are conceivable "commercial activities" that would not trigger it. The fact that the project is now apparently organized as a dual-licensing commercial venture justifies heightened scrutiny of such statements. For these reasons, I propose that any future packaging of AGPL-licensed releases of itext be subject to explicit approval by Fedora Legal. -- Richard E. Fontana Red Hat, Inc.

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal August 2010