legal December 2012

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

7 participants
6 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

Orthanc - OpenSSL exception
by Sébastien Jodogne 19 Dec '12

19 Dec '12

Dear all, I am the upstream developer of Orthanc, an open-source DICOM server [1]. Yesterday, I submitted a first version of a Fedora package for Orthanc [2]. As pointed out by Antonio Trande [3], Orthanc is licensed under the GPLv3 license with the OpenSSL exception [1]. This is because Orthanc supports SSL encryption for its Web/REST interface for securing the communications [4]. Unfortunately, I do not see the GPLv3 + OpenSSL exception in the licenses that are supported by Fedora [5]. Could someone indicate me how I can take this issue into consideration for the Orthanc Fedora packaging? I thank you much in advance! Regards, Sébastien Jodogne- [1] https://code.google.com/p/orthanc/ [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888301 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888301#c3 [4] http://people.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html [5] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses

3 2

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] MIT +no-false-attribs License
by Tom Callaway 11 Dec '12

11 Dec '12

On 11/26/2012 09:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > MIT +no-false-attribs License > > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person > obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation > files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without > restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, > copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell > copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the > Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following > conditions: > > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be > included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > > Distributions of all or part of the Software intended to be used > by the recipients as they would use the unmodified Software, > containing modifications that substantially alter, remove, or > disable functionality of the Software, outside of the documented > configuration mechanisms provided by the Software, shall be > modified such that the Original Author's bug reporting email > addresses and urls are either replaced with the contact information > of the parties responsible for the changes, or removed entirely. > > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, > EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES > OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND > NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT > HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, > WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING > FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR > OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. This is Free and GPL-Compatible. Use: License: MITNFA ~tom

1 0

License propagation in Maven pom.xml hierarchy
by Stanislav Ochotnicky 11 Dec '12

11 Dec '12

I would like guidance on propagation of licenses within Apache Maven pom.xml files. Short introduction: Maven pom.xml files specify project build process and various metadata. They *can* contain licensing information embedded in a special <licenses> tag. We package relatively a lot of simple pom packages (i.e. there's only the xml file packaged + few fedora glue). Not all of these files are clearly licensed but they almost always have parent pom.xml files (specified in <parent> tag). What I believe makes sense is that if the pom.xml file doesn't specify license, we should assume the license is the same as parent pom. In any case the files are relatively simple so they might not be even copyrightable (but better safe than sorry). Can we get clearance for this or similar approach? Note that contacting upstreams with these requests have mostly been fruitful with new projects, but we have quite a few old things where they are long abandoned (but still used). -- Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky(a)redhat.com> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno PGP: 7B087241 Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com

2 1

CC-BY-ND ok for Fedora?
by Paul Wise 10 Dec '12

10 Dec '12

Hi all, According to the Fedora wiki[1], the CC-BY-ND license is ok for Fedora. This license does not give the FSF four freedoms[2], does not fit the Open Source Definition[3], the Debian Free Software Guidelines[4] nor the definition of Free Cultural Works[5]. Why is Fedora accepting a proprietary[6] license for content? 1. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses_3 2. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html 3. http://opensource.org/docs/definition.html 4. http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines 5. http://freedomdefined.org/Definition 6. http://freeculture.org/blog/2012/08/27/stop-the-inclusion-of-proprietary-li… -- bye, pabs http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/

2 1

Python licensing for backported code
by Ian Weller 07 Dec '12

07 Dec '12

Hi all, This refers to the following review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885013 The code in question is here: https://bitbucket.org/brandon/backports.ssl_match_hostname/src This package's entire purpose is to have a method from Python 3.2 available in earlier versions of Python. The code is copied from Python 3.2 into its own module. As far as I know, that means the code is under the Python license. On the PyPi page: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/backports.ssl_match_hostname/3.2a3 the license is listed as MIT. Is the person who put the license tag on PyPi just wrong, or is there something more elaborate I have to look into here? -- Ian Weller <ian(a)ianweller.org>

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal December 2012