legal April 2011

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 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

Usage of the Fedora logo on Mono's download info site
by Timur Kristóf 09 May '11

09 May '11

Dear Legal team, Christian Krause and myself would like to volunteer to maintain a page for Fedora in Mono's download information site at http://www.go-mono.com/mono-downloads/download.html The people at the #mono IRC channel told me that any distribution can request their own page in there in the "Mono for Unsupported or Community-Supported Distribution" section. (Currently there is only some info about Debian and Ubuntu, but I think Fedora deserves its page there too.) The page works in the following way: - By default, it lists commercially supported distributions - When clicking on the "Other" button (with Tux), the user gets to the "Mono for Unsupported or Community-Supported Distribution" section - In there, the logos and names of distributions appear and when clicking on one, the user gets to a page which contains information about how to get Mono on that distribution. So, if we got such a page, clicking on the Fedora logo would allow the user to get information about how to install Mono on Fedora. I think this fits into http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Trademark_guidelines#Usage_That_Does_No… but I'd still like to ask, since I'm not a lawyer and I'm not 100% sure. If you are okay with this, we will request such a page from the Mono team. Cheers, Timur Kristóf

2 1

Trademark license needed for
by Jared K. Smith 25 Apr '11

25 Apr '11

Haowei Lee, a Fedora ambassador from China, has approached me about helping him get a "verified" status for an account on Sina's microblogging site -- essentially the Chinese version of Twitter or Identi.ca. I'm assuming this has trademark implications, so I'm bringing it up here for your consideration. You can see Haowei's request at http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/marketing/2011-April/013856.html -- Jared Smith Fedora Project Leader

1 0

Use of trademarked operating system icons (eg. Windows logo) in Fedora programs
by Richard W.M. Jones 20 Apr '11

20 Apr '11

I'm afraid my google-fu is failing me and I cannot find if we have specific legal advice on including trademarked operating system logos (eg. the Windows logo[1] or the FreeBSD logo[2]) in Fedora packages. The nearest I can find is this advice on xbill -- use rejected because xbill was *disparaging* the Windows OS: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2009-February/000547.html My proposed use is in a graphical program that identifies different virtual machine operating systems, so the use would just be informative, not disparaging. These logos are of course not Free because there are restrictions on both field of use and modification. On the other hand, we distribute things like GFDL documentation, the Firefox logo, and firmware which also has limits. Apologies if I'm overlooking something obvious in the wiki: there's plenty of talk about using the *Fedora* logo in the right way, but nothing I can find about using other logos ... Rich. [1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Windows_logo.svg [2] http://www.freebsd.org/logo.html -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones New in Fedora 11: Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 70 libraries supprt'd http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW http://www.annexia.org/fedora_mingw

3 10

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] legal Digest, Vol 46, Issue 4
by gatlin sullivan 18 Apr '11

18 Apr '11

Is there any interest in PRMFusion for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474549.

1 0

"Whatever" license
by Eric Smith 18 Apr '11

18 Apr '11

I'm working on packaging GSmartControl. Most of it is under a "GPLv2 or GPLv3" license, some is BSD, some is zlib, some is Boost. Some files have no notice, and their COPYING file says "All files which don't have any copyright notices, as well as tests and examples are covered under the Whatever License. See LICENSE_whatever.txt for details." LICENSE_whatever.txt says: Whatever License 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. Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document. Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely. Is this an acceptable license for Fedora? If so, what should it be called in the License tag in the spec file? When there are both "or" and "and" conditions involved in multiple licensing, how is that conveyed in the License tag? Can I use parenthesis, e.g. License: (GPLv2 or GPLv3) and BSD and zlib and Boost and Whatever Thanks! Eric

3 3

gSOAP
by Tom Callaway 04 Apr '11

04 Apr '11

Apologies for the wide distribution, but if you were waiting on me for clarification of the gSOAP licensing, please speak up. I know it was a concern, but I can't seem to find it to circle back with the results. ~tom == Fedora Project

1 0

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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal April 2011