legal May 2011

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

18 participants
12 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

eGenix public license 1.1.0
by Steve Traylen 07 Jun '11

07 Jun '11

Hi, As part of python26-numpy review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619355 a "new" license cropped up. eGenix public license 1.1.0 http://www.egenix.com/products/eGenix.com-Public-License-1.1.0.pdf It claims to based on the old Python license and that looks to be case. Can this license be approved for Fedora. Steve. -- Steve Traylen

2 1

LGPLv2+ statement
by Jaromir Capik 27 May '11

27 May '11

Hi. I'd like to know if the following statement can be considered a LGPLv2+. I somehow cannot find the LGPLv2+ template. I found just LGPLv2 templates which differ a bit and since I'm unsure what the extra plus sign means, I considered it a good question for this mailing list. /* * Hibernate, Relational Persistence for Idiomatic Java * * Copyright (c) 2008, Red Hat Middleware LLC or third-party contributors as * indicated by the @author tags or express copyright attribution * statements applied by the authors. All third-party contributions are * distributed under license by Red Hat Middleware LLC. * * This copyrighted material is made available to anyone wishing to use, modify, * copy, or redistribute it subject to the terms and conditions of the GNU * Lesser General Public License, as published by the Free Software Foundation. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY * or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU Lesser General Public License * for more details. * * You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License * along with this distribution; if not, write to: * Free Software Foundation, Inc. * 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor * Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA */ Please, let me know. Thanks in advance. Regards, Jaromir. -- Red Hat Czech, s.r.o. Software Engineer / BaseOS Email: jcapik(a)redhat.com Web: www.cz.redhat.com Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic IC: 27690016

2 1

Use of Fedora icons
by jerboaa 24 May '11

24 May '11

Hi, We are developing an Eclipse plug-in [1], which uses a few icons/logos related to Fedora. In particular, we are using the Fedora icon in a context menu item of our tool (see screenshot at [2]). We are wondering if this is OK, or if we would need to remove the icon. Having read COPYING of that package, this isn't apparent to me. I understand that there are Fedora icons available as part of the fedora-logos package. Currently, we are using /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps/fedora-logo-icon.png as it comes with Fedora 15. Thanks, Severin [1] https://fedorahosted.org/eclipse-fedorapackager [2] http://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/fedora_icon.png

2 1

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] ssh enable and firewall open for sshd, connection by default after install who's legally liable?.
by Tristan Santore 19 May '11

19 May '11

On 19/05/11 19:59, legal-request(a)lists.fedoraproject.org wrote: > Re: [Fedora-legal-list] ssh enable and firewall open for sshd > connection by default after install who's legally liable?. I think there is being a point missed here. As ambassador you are just handing out a disk. You are not: 1. Putting it into a persons machine. 2. Installing it for them. 3. You have not been instructed by them to provide a service. 4. Maliciously and recklessly installing something, without their consent. 5. Providing them with a written/verbal guarantee that it will not eat his/her Children. Probably a few other points I have missed. I think the key protection here is that the end-user does not end up in a service agreement, or has purchased a product, nor that Fedora is deployed without his/her consent. Regards, Tristan P.s.: Of course, there might be a weird and wonderful country, where handing out free software is a crime, or anything free for that matter. However unlikely that is! But legal systems are weird and wonderful like a bunch of parrots. -- Tristan Santore BSc MBCS TS4523-RIPE Network and Infrastructure Operations InterNexusConnect Mobile +44-78-55069812 Tristan.Santore(a)internexusconnect.net Former Thawte Notary (Please note: Thawte has closed its WoT programme down, and I am therefore no longer able to accredit trust) For Fedora related issues, please email me at: TSantore(a)fedoraproject.org

1 0

ssh enable and firewall open for sshd connection by default after install who's legally liable?.
by Jóhann B. Guðmundsson 19 May '11

19 May '11

We were discussing this [1] a bit here at the office when a co worker who was part of the conversation ( non IT ) guy was listening in and dropped in the question if an end user computer is compromised who would be legally liable for any harm and financial loss that might be caused by. Which got us a bit baffled since we dont speak legalize so it would be good if this gets cleared for us. The argument he was making was that if an end users computer gets compromised due to a default configuration not an exploited bug in software and it can be proven without an shadow of doubt that that it was the cause for the harm and any financial loss that the... The novice end user as has absolutely no idea what ssh is and what it's used for. The end user has not agreed to have read any documentation that may or may not mentioning this being enabled. ( I'm not sure if we mention that it is enabled on the DVD ) There is no mentioning of it being enabled during or immediately after install or after a user logged in for the first time. There is no apparent option for the end user to disable it either during or after install or after a user logged in for the first time If the above holds true then the project in question would be liable for any harm/financial loss caused by . So who's liable in this scenario.. Is it the end user? Is it the network provider? Is it the entity that is responsible for the network the end user is connected to.? Is it Red Hat/Fedora ? Did FESCO contact the legal team when it revisited [2] and sanctioned which service where permitted to be enabled by default as specific exceptions? Thanks JBG 1. http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/security/2011-May/001483.html 2. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Starting_services_by_default

6 10

Question about BSD style license
by Sergio Belkin 16 May '11

16 May '11

Hi, My name is Sergio Belkin I maintain UpTools package. That package has a License that has 4 clauses and because of that I get confused and labeld as "BSD with advertising". But a closer read of "BSD with advertising" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#What.27s_the_deal_with_the_BSD… makes to understand that is the License that we are using is not "BSD with advertising". Anyway I wonder if even that has 4 clauses it's a "BSD" license. I've found that cyrus-sasl has the same license and its license it was as "BSD" but maintainer changed the tag License, surely because of a bug I reported. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679416 But again, seeing more deeply it doesn't seem "BSD with advertising". In short: Please could you tell me if the following License can be tagged as "BSD" i.e. BSD License (no advertising) /* UpTools v8.5 * * Copyright (c) 2005-2011 Fundacion Universidad de Palermo (Argentina). * All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in * the documentation and/or other materials provided with the * distribution. * * 3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its * contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived * from this software without specific prior written permission. * * 4. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following * acknowledgment: 'This product includes software developed by the * "Universidad de Palermo, Argentina" (http://www.palermo.edu/).' * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS * "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT * LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR * A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT * HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, * SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED * TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR * PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF * LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING * NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS * SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. */ (End of License) Thanks in advance -- -- Sergio Belkin http://www.sergiobelkin.com Watch More TV http://sebelk.blogspot.com LPIC-2 Certified - http://www.lpi.org

5 7

Are Yahoo Weather's terms of use okay for a Fedora package?
by Timur Kristóf 16 May '11

16 May '11

Hi, We are working on a Gnome shell extension that will be able to display weather information. We are thinking of two possible sources for weather information: - libgweather - yahoo The reason why we're considering yahoo is because it seems to support a more wide variety of locations than libgweather. The question is, are Yahoo Weather's terms of use appropriate for this if we want to include it as a package in Fedora? It can be found here: http://developer.yahoo.com/weather/#terms Thanks in advance for your answer! Cheers, Timur Kristóf

2 1

Returned mail: Data format error
by archive＠mail-archive.com 16 May '11

16 May '11

��C_x�A6� �}��4x�$i/ly�zf�f��Gy��)�|��E��Ig��k��,C��<7�(�b^�� 7u��B> ;`k��n��no�)��[��[,��m#��s�R�k8��N��\��W�!?0��Pvj(�.k�?J��#�!d�Bz<X~�*<G\6O��/#z��c�<-?�Z�d��\��E��7�7��)��^)�o�N��s2>�`�w�p_�g��;re��g*��g��|�i�_P�K�y��'��O�>�Z]z,��vGV��n��vw�rXC[X�� ;��z(��D?��V�<D��s�J|�\M�'�Pu��%��0�IZ4��o4.��2&Bt� ��Ib �6 # ��m��M��^�.*��J��T� c�}(7��Cm��uL51��~�t54��X�Y��yd��w�S��|��7��S��8�t��8��v��;DV��&��G�"��\NE}��oh4��s�D�l>�^88q��j��d��Q�)�� F��8zt��]��`�� DW35&��'�P�6�%��XBg�5;\L�V�i��5��S";p-T��c�<�X,p��F�J�NfQ��&�b�Sq��yQ�H�A��S{�k��N��-�.��v�%��R(��iX��"S� ��c��G��b��R��3"��R�^b`^X��65�Lj2��p�&��J�P�O��!}��n�cn�Z�AE�h�9:F�b�X��b��*��*�� M��xy�� v'O%��)DTj��Rs��vL��G��4.�{*I�� ~��:��9�Rku��ld��P�S�Q9�]arE��ev��`m)��m

1 0

Credit loss in Fedora translation files
by Runa Bhattacharjee 13 May '11

13 May '11

Hello, Translation files submitted via http://fedora.transifex.net removes all information related to the copyright of the content as well as the names of the previous translators. As far as I can understand, the translated content for the Fedora packages and documentation are governed by the rights as indicated for the main package and/or documentation. I'd like to know: @ if there could be any implications of legal nature at this point due to the loss of credits, and @ if any statements or disclaimers need to be publicly made until the time this issue is sorted It is currently being discussed on the Transifex ticketing system at: http://trac.transifex.org/ticket/675 Thanks Runa -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Runab

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal May 2011