legal March 2011

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

15 participants
15 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

question on a new license
by Oxana Kurysheva 04 Apr '11

04 Apr '11

Hi, I want to make a package with Zimbra Desktop application (http://www.zimbra.com/products/desktop.html). The problem is that it uses a license called Zimbra Public License, Version 1.3 (ZPL). And ZPL is not listed under good licenses here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensingso I wanted to get it cleared, can I make a package with this application for Fedora. The license is based on Mozilla license, but I can't say is it a good fork or not. The link for the license is: http://www.zimbra.com/license/zimbra-public-license-1-3.htmlCan you say is it good or not? Thanks, Oxana

2 1

Required consent for mining Bugzilla data?
by Michel Alexandre Salim 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, At work (the Open Source Research Group, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg - -- osr.cs.fau.de) I'm planning to propose an analysis of the effect automated bug reporting tools like abrt (and Ubuntu's apport) have on code quality, as well as developer and user engagement. I'll propose that all identities be anonymized; not sure if the components and projects need to be anonymized as well. Is there anyone specific I need to get in touch with? Thanks, - -- Michel Alexandre Salim GPG key ID: 78884778 () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk2UQBwACgkQNd069XiIR3jGegCfQKprDgYvg1ZxsCVOuO7rHAJH nrcAn124En4L77EYBBtPcPwx1E+anBZ3 =3tpI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 2

OpenCASCADE Licence v. 6.5
by Jiri Kastner 29 Mar '11

29 Mar '11

hi, with release 6.5 of OpenCASCADE changed license. i noticed, that https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Open_CASCADE_Technology_Public_Lic… is quite old. on http://www.opencascade.org/getocc/license/ is the new one. can you, please, review this license if is still 'BAD' one? thanks in advance. best regards jiri kastner

3 3

Possible incompatible licensing of audio files packaged with marave
by Rex Dieter 25 Mar '11

25 Mar '11

Per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690658 marave (currently) packaged includes some sound files from several sources with < 100% clear licensing: 1. some files from: http://www.partnersinrhyme.com/pirsounds/WEB_DESIGN_SOUNDS_WAV/BUTTONS.shtml that includes the text: "These Button sound effects are offered for free royalty free use in your commercial multimedia project or as background sounds on your website. Partners In Rhyme retains all copyrights, please do not resell in a sound collection or make available for download on a website." not sure the implications of "offered for free royalty-free use... " vs the "please do not"... there. be safe and omit these? 2. and some from http://www.adobeflash.com/download/sounds/clicks/ that includes just "Feel free to use the sounds in your personal projects, if you want to use the sounds in commercial work we recommend that you contact the authors by visiting their web site." which doesn't sound (ba dum dum) too promising either. advice? -- Rex

2 1

driverproblem
by it lithe 25 Mar '11

25 Mar '11

Dear Sir/Madam, I'm so interest & new user for "Fedora 14". I can't update & register IRC Fadora 14. Because of I have a ZTE AX226 WiMAX USB Modem. It has built-in Microsoft based auto run driver. But I'm failed to setup it on "Fedora 14". I think its need linux based Driver Software or config method. Please.......... please Sir/Madam, help me for can successfully setup on Fedora14. -- Thanks & B. Regards Shah Mahbubur Rahman IT Manager +8801714497282 Lithe Group Road # 12, House # 43 Baridhara (Diplomatic Zone) Dhaka.

2 1

wimex
by it lithe 25 Mar '11

25 Mar '11

Dear Sir. I am so interest & new user for Fedora 14. I can not update & register IRC Fedora 14. Because of I have a ZTE AX226 WiMAX USB Modem. It has built in Microsoft based auto run driver. But I'm failed to setup it on Fedora 14. I think its need linux based Driver Software or config method. Please help me for can successfully setup on Fedora14. Thanks B Regards Shah Mahbubur Rahman IT Manager 8801714497282

1 0

Providing a copy of the GPL
by Ruediger Landmann 20 Mar '11

20 Mar '11

Hi all I'm currently reviewing[0] a package (perl-NTLM) that was originally published under a mostly free license but with some unacceptable restrictions (not allowed to sell it, must send the developer the diffs of any changes). The packager contacted the developer, and the developer agreed to license it under "GPL+ or Artistic". The packager correctly included the email with the clarification from the developer in the source RPM per Fedora policy.[1] However, we would now be shipping a copy of GPL-licensed software without providing a copy of the GPL, which I understand we can't do under section 4 of the GPL.[2] The packaging guidelines state that we must include a file that contains the text of the license "If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file" and that "the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake" if such a file is missing from the package.[3] However, the GPL doesn't seem to require the upstream to include a copy of the license in their source -- it only seems to require this of people who make copies of the program (section 4 again). The FSF's guidelines for use of the GPL don't seem to insist on this either: they only say that the developer "should also include a copy of the license itself somewhere in the distribution of your program"[4] -- "should", not "must". So: 1. am I right in thinking that because the "Artistic" option doesn't specify the clarified version (or version 2.0) of the Artistic license, we're compelled to ship under the GPL? 2. assuming that we're shipping under the GPL, am I right in thinking that we cannot ship this code without including a copy of the GPL? 3. assuming that we must include a copy of the GPL, can we do so even if upstream does not? Cheers Rudi [0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688786 [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarifi… [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt [3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [4] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

2 2

Proper license field for GPL aggregation
by Michel Alexandre Salim 19 Mar '11

19 Mar '11

If a package's source is under a GPL-compatible license (say MIT), and it links against a GPL library (say readline's GPLv3+), what should the license field say? Maybe "MIT and GPLv3", with a comment explaining which library pulls in the GPLv3 requirement? Thanks, -- Michel

2 5

Correct tag for GFDL 1.1 or later?
by Bruno Wolff III 19 Mar '11

19 Mar '11

I am getting lint warnings for using "GFDLv1.1+". Is there some other tag I am supposed to use or is lint wrong? Thanks.

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal March 2011