legal October 2011

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 participants
7 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

IDEA patent expiration?
by Orcan Ogetbil 13 Jan '12

13 Jan '12

Hi all, We explicitly exclude the "International Data Encryption Algorithm" (IDEA) in a few Fedora packages (bouncycastle, opengpg, ?) due to its patent issues. Recently it occurred to me that this patent [1] may actually have been expired by now. There is some debate in the wikipedia's discussion page about this topic [2]. From what I understand, the general perception is that the US patent expired in May 2011. Could you please check this? When is it possible to have the IDEA in Fedora? Thanks, Orcan [1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2F… [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Data_Encryption_Algorithm

2 4

Is the Dxflib license free?
by Volker Fröhlich 31 Oct '11

31 Oct '11

Dear list readers, A package I put on review can utilize dxflib: http://www.qcad.org/dxflib_downloads.html This license file ships in the tarball: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/dxflib_commercial_license.txt What looks like a proprietary license, is suddenly interupted by: "NOTE: dxflib Open Source Edition is licensed under the terms of the GPL and not under this Agreement. If Licensee has, at any time, developed all (or any portions of) the Application(s) using RibbonSoft's publicly licensed dxflib Open Source Edition, Licensee must comply with RibbonSoft's requirements and license such Application(s) (or any portions derived there from) under the terms of the Free Software Foundation's GNU General Public License version 2 (the "GPL") a copy of which is located at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC1 ..." The headers in the various file mention GPLv2. With all the rubble in the license, around mentioning it was GPLv2, is this certainly free software? Thanks in advance, Volker Fröhlich

2 3

diffmark license
by Petr Pisar 27 Oct '11

27 Oct '11

I'd like to package `diffmark' (http://www.mangrove.cz/diffmark/). The source tar ball <http://www.mangrove.cz/diffmark/diffmark-0.08.tar.gz> containts following COPYING file: > 1. you can do what you want with it > 2. I refuse any responsibility for the consequences What's the correct license name for License RPM tag? Is is `Public Domain' or `WTFPL', or should we create new lincense name? -- Petr

2 1

Haskell Report License
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen 27 Oct '11

27 Oct '11

Hi, I want to add http://hackage.haskell.org/package/random (ghc-random) to Fedora. The attached LICENSE file says that parts of the code are BSD, and some are taken from the Haskell 98 Language Report, with the following license: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Code derived from the document "Report on the Programming Language Haskell 98", is distributed under the following license: Copyright (c) 2002 Simon Peyton Jones The authors intend this Report to belong to the entire Haskell community, and so we grant permission to copy and distribute it for any purpose, provided that it is reproduced in its entirety, including this Notice. Modified versions of this Report may also be copied and distributed for any purpose, provided that the modified version is clearly presented as such, and that it does not claim to be a definition of the Haskell 98 Language. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can this license be added to the list of Fedora approved licenses? Jens

2 3

What license tag to use for pcfi
by Orion Poplawski 26 Oct '11

26 Oct '11

Spot - Can you tell me what license tag to use for the pcfi package? http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pcfi-2010.08.09-1.fc16.src.rpm http://jukka.zitting.name/2009/com.adobe.pdf/LICENSE.txt http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/cmap/License Thanks! -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com

2 2

Regarding presence of license information in source files
by Lakshmi Narasimhan T V 17 Oct '11

17 Oct '11

Hello, Is it mandatory for all the source code files in a package to have license information explicitly mentioned in each of them? For instance, in a package there is a LICENSE file containing the license text. However the name of the license is not mentioned in each of the source file. Can this package be still included in Fedora or does the packager wait for upstream to make required change (include license information) in each of the source files? Thanks, -- Regards Lakshmi Narasimhan T V

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal October 2011