legal March 2011

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

15 participants
15 discussions

Questions from French NPO
by Jared K. Smith 18 Mar '11

18 Mar '11

Here were the questions from the French NPO we discussed at SXSW. I thought that I had sent them over to you earlier, but here they are again. -Jared --- First of all thanks for clearing this up, at least this way we won't waste time trying to find a new name which would anyway not get accepted. Could you please check with them if we could use an acronym without specifying what it means ? We were thinking on ideas like: The idea would be to name the NPO "A²F²" (for example) and specify only what it means in the objective of the NPO. Second question, on french law, a NPO needs to have a "mission" (goal, objective). You were saying last week-end that we should be able to keep the word "Fedora" in these goals. Could you please check/confirm it ? Our current goals for the NPO are (roughly translated): "The NPO has for goal to defend, promote and help the development of the GNU/Linux distribution FEDORA through the FEDORA project and more globaly all FOSS which could be associated with it" Needless to say that removing the word "Fedora" from these goals is going to make the NPO loss a lot of its "raison d'être" (rational). Finally, it seems that we never received the paper copy of the trademark agreement with Red Hat's signature on it. Could you check this out ? (I added Paul on cc for this question) Thanks in advance for your help, Best regards, Pierre * plus A2F2 reminds me a little of H2G2 :)

1 1

Regarding c++ source with a separate license
by Lakshmi Narasimhan T V 17 Mar '11

17 Mar '11

Hello I am reviewing mpdas https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=680657. The sources are licensed under BSD license. There is one file in the sources md5.cpp which has been authored by a different entity and has a separate license text. The contents look to be from a md5.c file put inside a cpp file. The license text is close to MIT but I am not completely sure about that. I have two doubts 1) Is this package acceptable in Fedora? Reason is that if the whole set of sources are under BSD then this md5.cpp is also under that license. Would the new author have permission to do this? 2) If yes to @1, should the packager mention two licenses in the spec file? -- Regards Lakshmi Narasimhan T V

3 3

test
by Christopher Svanefalk 13 Mar '11

13 Mar '11

This is just a test to confirm that I am subscribed to the list. Please ignore it, sorry for any inconvenience. Chris

1 0

hplip (hp-plugin) installs binary-only plugins and firmware into system directories without RPM control
by Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 12 Mar '11

12 Mar '11

Hello Tim et al. Recently, I found out that certain HP devices require binary-only firmware and plugins. Apparently, this is done via hp-setup, which runs hp-plugin to download the actual files from www.openprinting.org and copies them into selected directories under /usr/share/hplip (and puts some udev config files under /etc/udev/rules.d). Putting the issue of the requirement of these files for correct device operation aside, this is wrong, because users end up with files in system directories which are not owned by any package. I've searched mailing list archives for answers to no avail. Therefore, I have the following questions: For Tim: have you considered doing something similar to RPMFusion akmod, i.e. modifying hp-setup/hp-plugin to build an appropriate package on-the-fly? Also, the binary plugins get installed under /usr/share/hplip, which is against the packaging guidelines (binaries should go in /usr/lib or /usr/lib64, depending on the arch). For Tim and legal folks: has anyone tried asking HP to open-source the plugins and the firmware or at least changing the license for the plugins and the firmwares to one allowing redistribution? The latter would make the firmwares acceptable for Fedora and the plugins acceptable for RPMFusion. I have a preliminary spec file for the aforementioned bits, by the way. I really don't like having files floating around the file system outside RPM control. Regards, Dominik -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

1 0

Does License tag include manuals?
by Bruno Wolff III 12 Mar '11

12 Mar '11

lordsawar has a gfdl manual that is installed. Does that need to be reflected in the license tag such that it should be GPLv2+ and GFDL1.1+, instead of just GPLv2+? P.S. I originally asked on devel, but was directed to ask on legal instead.

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal March 2011