legal October 2012

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

14 participants
14 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

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] License clarification dxflib
by Volker Fröhlich 27 Nov '12

27 Nov '12

Dear Andrew! Thank you for your prompt response. The problem is, the paragraph in question circumscribes the terms of the GPL and it fails to do it properly. That's what's causing the problem. Besides that, the term "Open Source Edition" is not clarified, as far as I could see. If the license stated in this file does not apply, can you please remove it from the tarball and just include a copy of the FSF license instead? Regards, Volker Fröhlich On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 20:36 +0100, Andrew Mustun wrote: > Hello, > > The dxflib Open Source Edition is licensed under the terms of the > GPL v2 without anything to add or remove from that. > > The paragraph below is meant to clarify what GPL / Open Source > means. If your application is released under the GPL v2, the > commercial license contained in file dxflib_commercial_license.txt > simply does not apply at all for you. > > Regards, > Andrew Mustun > > On 10/31/12 8:24 PM, Volker Froehlich wrote: > > Dear RibbonSoft! > > > > I'm a packager with the Fedora GNU/Linux distribution. I'm packaging > > SAGA GIS (https://sourceforge.net/projects/saga-gis/), which uses > > dxflib. > > > > I read that the "Open Source Edition" of dxflib was licensed under the > > terms of GPL version 2. While this is clearly stated in the headers of > > the source code, the file dxflib_commercial_license.txt causes us > > headache. > > > > """ > > 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 > > (i.e., any Product(s) and/or parts, components, portions thereof > > developed using GPL licensed software, including dxflib Open Source > > Edition, must be licensed under the terms of the GPL, and the GPL-based > > source code must be made available upon request). > > """ > > > > Tom Callaway of Red Hat found this statement was not in line with the > > GPL and therefore non-free: > > > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-October/001734.html > > > > It'd be great if we could work this out together. A clear license > > situation would allow to include dxflib in Fedora and other > > distributions that care about software freedom. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Volker Fröhlich > > > > >

2 2

Opinion request for the Sequence Library license
by Ismael Olea 05 Nov '12

05 Nov '12

Hi: I'm ready to submit a new package for sequence-library. In the past the source code of this library has been included with the svnkit ones by svnkit upstream. A new release of svnkit use it now as an external jar library. The license seems to be an ad-hoc one in BSD style and it's not in the current list at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License… So I'm here asking about your consideration about this. Text is available in the current upstream site: http://svn.svnkit.com/repos/3rdparty/de.regnis.q.sequence/tags/1.0.2/LICENS… Thanks for in advance. -- Ismael Olea http://olea.org/diario/

2 2

Question about License field
by Luis Villa 31 Oct '12

31 Oct '12

Quick Q about the license field in a Fedora-produced RPM: What does "/" mean in the License field? i.e., does: GPL/LGPL mean disjunctive dual-license (i.e., recipient can choose which terms to comply with)? mixed-license (e.g., libraries LGPL, utilities GPL)? Or is there no way to know merely from the License field? [In the particular example I was looking at, it means the latter, but I guess I'm wondering if that is consistent/reliable or more a fluke.] Thanks- Luis

2 4

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Question about License field
by Jason L Tibbitts III 31 Oct '12

31 Oct '12

>>>>> "MM" == Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)mattdm.org> writes: MM> numactl says "LGPLv2/GPLv2". This was mentioned in the merge review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226207 but it doesn't appear that it was actually fixed. - J<

1 0

License clarification dxflib
by Volker Fröhlich 31 Oct '12

31 Oct '12

Dear RibbonSoft! I'm a packager with the Fedora GNU/Linux distribution. I'm packaging SAGA GIS (https://sourceforge.net/projects/saga-gis/), which uses dxflib. I read that the "Open Source Edition" of dxflib was licensed under the terms of GPL version 2. While this is clearly stated in the headers of the source code, the file dxflib_commercial_license.txt causes us headache. """ 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 (i.e., any Product(s) and/or parts, components, portions thereof developed using GPL licensed software, including dxflib Open Source Edition, must be licensed under the terms of the GPL, and the GPL-based source code must be made available upon request). """ Tom Callaway of Red Hat found this statement was not in line with the GPL and therefore non-free: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-October/001734.html It'd be great if we could work this out together. A clear license situation would allow to include dxflib in Fedora and other distributions that care about software freedom. Sincerely, Volker Fröhlich

1 0

AFM parser license
by Marek Kasik 30 Oct '12

30 Oct '12

Hi, I'm doing a license review of some packages which I maintain in Fedora. I've found 2 files which are under a license which I can not find among those on "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing". The license is used in these files: http://git.gnome.org/browse/evince/tree/backend/dvi/mdvi-lib/afmparse.c http://git.gnome.org/browse/evince/tree/backend/dvi/mdvi-lib/afmparse.h The license itself is: /* * (C) 1988, 1989 by Adobe Systems Incorporated. All rights reserved. * * This file may be freely copied and redistributed as long as: * 1) This entire notice continues to be included in the file, * 2) If the file has been modified in any way, a notice of such * modification is conspicuously indicated. * * PostScript, Display PostScript, and Adobe are registered trademarks of * Adobe Systems Incorporated. * * ************************************************************************ * THE INFORMATION BELOW IS FURNISHED AS IS, IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT * NOTICE, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A COMMITMENT BY ADOBE SYSTEMS * INCORPORATED. ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY OR * LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS OR INACCURACIES, MAKES NO WARRANTY OF ANY * KIND (EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY) WITH RESPECT TO THIS INFORMATION, * AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, * FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSES AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. * ************************************************************************ */ I found that on page "http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/ApacheMigration/Permissive" is written that it should be compatible with ASL license but I'm not sure about this. Could you help me with finding a compatible license from the list on "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing" ? Regards Marek

2 1

Overall license and Creative Commons
by Volker Fröhlich 30 Oct '12

30 Oct '12

Dear list readers! The artwork of the game "flare" is licensed under the terms of CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later. That's at least what the header says on https://github.com/clintbellanger/flare-game/wiki/Credits Scrolling down to the details, you find various licenses stated: - CC-BY-SA 3.0 - CC-BY 3.0 - CC-BY 2.0 - Public Domain - Public Domain, CC0 I wonder if the above license claim is correct. http://wiki-staging.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#If_I_cre… "Note that when you include a Creative Commons licensed work in a collection, you cannot change the license applicable to the original work itself." I assume all the artwork together could be called a "collection". Saying "this is all CC-BY-SA 3.0" sounds like changing the license of the original work, since these are no derivates, as far as I understand. Looking forward to your comments, Volker Fröhlich

2 1

Update to Binary Firmware Exceptions
by Tom Callaway 25 Oct '12

25 Oct '12

Two minor exceptions have been added to the Licensing Guidelines: A new exception has been added to permit prebuilt binary QEMU ROMs implementing BIOS or Firmware for QEMU system targets to be packaged in those situations where it is not practical or possible to build them from source, as long as the corresponding source code is also included in the Source RPM package. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:SoftwareTypes#QEMU_ROMs The wording of the Binary Firmware exception has been amended slightly to permit the packaging and inclusion of firmware files which are necessary to boot Fedora on some devices (e.g. raspberrypi), as long as the standard exception criteria are met. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:SoftwareTypes#Binary_Firmware Thanks, ~tom == Fedora Project

2 2

tegracrm license
by Jiri Kastner 19 Oct '12

19 Oct '12

hi, first part is bsd style license or not? and what about second part (regarding tegra20-miniloader.h and tegra30-miniloader.h)? http://nv-tegra.nvidia.com/gitweb/?p=tools/ tegrarcm.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSE;hb=HEAD

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal October 2012