legal February 2012

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

26 participants
21 discussions

Board question regarding non-software goods.
by David Nalley 23 Feb '12

23 Feb '12

First, my apologies for cross-posting. Spot, Pam, et al: At today's Board meeting[0] there was some significant backlash to the proposed TM guidelines, specifically the non-software goods section. The principal issue the Board would like to understand is: What is the impact of not running requests for trademark approval for non-software goods through the yet to be created trac instance (as is currently the case). e.g. is there a risk to the trademarks from the lack of documentation of quantity, events distributed at, etc, or does this merely simplify record keeping/keep someone from looking at the various budget pages/meeting logs/mailing lists where these things are currently discussed/record. Additionally, a number of folks present at the Board meeting who are involved in the acquisition and distribution of Fedora swag were concerned with the additional overhead, and for clarification offered up the following workflow that already happens: Need for swag is discussed and agreed to by regional groups such as FAmNA, EMEA Ambassadors, in public. Designs either generated or proofed by Fedora Design (or are designs that have been generated or approved in the past) and are then ordered. The bill is subsequently paid by RHT (involving management approval of expense reports, auditing by finance etc). This presents the additional questions of: * Does RHT ultimately paying (and thus at least tacitly, if not explicitly approving of the usage) for the goods not make this TM usage on the part of RHT and thus not needing approval? * Is it permissible for the Board to delegate either to the various groups within Fedora that produce swag, or perhaps to the regional community RHT credit card holders, the ability to approve TM usage within a well defined swag/non-software goods category. * Despite the non-software goods section in the TM guidelines - swag has been produced without Board approval for at least the past 4 years - has there been a delegation of this authority already, or was perhaps the understanding that RHT footing the bill indicated RHT approval? [0] http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-02-22/fedora_board.201…

2 1

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Board question regarding non-software goods.
by David Nalley 22 Feb '12

22 Feb '12

2012/2/22 Máirín Duffy <duffy(a)fedoraproject.org>: > On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 17:44 -0500, David Nalley wrote: >> Need for swag is discussed and agreed to by regional groups such as >> FAmNA, EMEA Ambassadors, in public. Designs either generated or >> proofed by Fedora Design (or are designs that have been generated or >> approved in the past) and are then ordered > > FWIW there has been more than a trivial amount of swag that has not gone > through design team approval and print-ready artwork has not been > proofed with the design team, resulting in incorrect colors (RGB instead > of correct CMYK colorspace) and the wrong usage of fonts (usually due to > not flattening fonts to paths) in the final product. For the most part, > logo manipulations do go through either the logo queue or the Design > team, but I have been disappointed in the past by designs with errors > that could have been prevented. That is true - I can think of a number of instances where that has been the case, though most of the examples I can think of seem to be a bit distant, but I've also been far more distant from the preparation of swag as well. --David

1 0

OpenSSH ECDSA support
by Carsten Mattner 22 Feb '12

22 Feb '12

I've tried to search bugzilla and forums for information on ECDSA support in the Fedora provided OpenSSH packages, but didn't find anything conclusive. What is the status? I can't find the link but remember that there was talk about reversing that decision after some investigation was finished. If Fedora doesn't plan to ship it with ECDSA enabled, what's the purpose of the Fedora ECC/TLS Test Server found here: https://ecc.fedora.redhat.com/ Just curious about that site and it's relation to Fedora, if Fedora doesn't support ECC.

2 8

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CGAL license change to (L)GPLv3+
by Nils Philippsen 22 Feb '12

22 Feb '12

On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 15:29 +0100, Laurent Rineau wrote: > Le mardi 07 février 2012 14:21:53 Laurent Rineau a écrit : > > From release 4.0, the CGAL libraries will be released under LGPLv3+ for the > > foundations, and GPLv3+ for the high level packages (instead of LGPLv2 and > > QPL respectively). > > In the CGAL.spec file, I mentionned "License: LGPLv3+ and GPLv3+". Could not I > simplify that into: "License: GPLv3+"? You should probably ask this question on the fedora-legal mailing list (on Cc). Nils -- Nils Philippsen "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase Red Hat a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nils(a)redhat.com nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011

3 5

Is the lincense of RelaxNGCC compatible with Fedora?
by juan.hernandez＠redhat.com 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

Hello, As part of the effort to package JBoss AS7 for Fedora we need to package RelaxNGCC. According to the web page the license use is ASL: http://relaxngcc.sourceforge.net/en/index.htm But then the only reference to the lincense in the source code itself is the file attached, which doesn't mention ASL at all. There are no license related headers in the source files either. Is it acceptable to include this in Fedora? Thanks in advance, Juan Hernandez

2 1

Making my script collection available for fedora repos
by Simon A. Erat 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

Hello In may 2011 i had decided to no longer use windows, allthough i have a bunch of original software of microsoft, i got fed up of it. As i'm a scripter / hobby dev, i started to write bash scripts for fedora to get myself used to it. Now at start i didnt care too much about the fedora philosophy concerning my scripts. Time has changed, and i would like to see my scripts as part of the offical fedora repositry. As of now, my script collection does need some work to be done, before i can even think about it to get allowed, as i used to install rpmfusion (free and nonfree, livna and adobe flash repo, in the past even skype and others). But before i start this rework/rewrite, i would need some advice what it may contain, or not. I've written a post at fedoraforum.org ( http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?p=1554944). The questions there are written in general, i copy paste them here and get more specific to my concern: * There is rpmfusion-free, may that be installed (not shipped) by something that is shiped with Fedora? (it irritates me that its named free, rpmfusion.org states other reasons - without naming them) * If my script collection includes code-routines that build a program of a source code that is available to everyone, is that permitted, or depends on the software going to be built? (specific: Oracle VirtualBox) * If my script collection checks the system for Third Party repos that contain non-FOSS software and if available install packages they contain as/if the user chooses so. Would this behaviour be ok? (specific: livna, rpmfusion*) ((i was told that will 'violate' policy)) * Found this Adobe lisence in the Fedora License list, does this mean i may install Adobe Flash from my PROJECT? (I guess not, but its confusing me, so i have to ask) * Some repos from repos.fedorapeople.org, are they permitted to be installed from my script, if i get an agree of the repo maintainer? What my script collection does in general: Help to build a system starting of the minimal install, thus i would love to see it installed with the minimal-install. (one may dream) Provide scripts to 'tweak' grub2, timeout, default selected, video res, or write iso files to usb devices, delete tempfiles, change plymouth and optional rebuild initrd and more. While the script collection aims to support mainly Red Hat based distributions (i'm heading towards RHCSA), it also aims to provide functionality to/on other distributions as well. For a better overview of its functions, please see these: * http://sourceforge.net/projects/seasc/files/README/download * http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=276184 * http://sea.hostingsociety.com (updating file links now) Sadly, i'm not a good documenter. The script collection i have written is licensed by GPLv3. Links i had read, but didnt understand all, irritate me, or i dont know how they apply to me (either one of these apply to the links below): * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/AdobeLicense * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems Thank you for reading. Kind regards Simon A. Erat, Switzerland // aka user: sea, on fedoraforum.org

2 1

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] ii package license
by Tristan Santore 04 Feb '12

04 Feb '12

On 03/02/12 12:00, legal-request(a)lists.fedoraproject.org wrote: > Send legal mailing list submissions to > legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > legal-request(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > legal-owner(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of legal digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. ii package license (Petr Šabata) > 2. Re: ii package license (Josh Boyer) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:04:57 +0100 > From: Petr Šabata <contyk(a)redhat.com> > To: legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ii package license > Message-ID: <20120203090457.GA27116(a)rincewind.brq.redhat.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear list, > > I'm packaging the ii IRC client [1] for Fedora and the > package reviewer has expressed concerns about its license. > This software includes, in addition to the main MIT-licensed > code, the following script: > > http://hg.suckless.org/ii/file/d163c8917af7/query.sh > > I've decided to use "MIT and Public domain" as the package > license. Would that be correct? > > Thanks in advance, > Petr > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784589 >

6 5

ii package license
by Petr Šabata 03 Feb '12

03 Feb '12

Dear list, I'm packaging the ii IRC client [1] for Fedora and the package reviewer has expressed concerns about its license. This software includes, in addition to the main MIT-licensed code, the following script: http://hg.suckless.org/ii/file/d163c8917af7/query.sh I've decided to use "MIT and Public domain" as the package license. Would that be correct? Thanks in advance, Petr [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784589

3 3

python-timelib licensing
by Ian Weller 01 Feb '12

01 Feb '12

I'm looking at python-timelib, a package required for python-mwlib, something we're trying to use in the Docs Project. http://pypi.python.org/pypi/timelib timelib basically exports some functions of PHP's date library as a Python extension, so the C code for the timelib extension would link against code from PHP. timelib is licensed under what it calls the zlib/libpng license: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/timelib#license and PHP has its own license. Is this legally sane/acceptable in Fedora, or do I need to talk to upstream and get them to fix it? (How would they fix it -- what kind of license would they need to change to?) -- Ian Weller <ian(a)ianweller.org>

2 1

Creative Commons Attribution <_>
by Marcus Lucero 01 Feb '12

01 Feb '12

In your list you have posted that the following are all FSF Free? either YES or NO. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives 3.0 Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No Derivatives 3.0 Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal Can I assume that this also means that the previous versions (1, 2, 2.5) of each of the licenses are also FSF Free? either YES or NO. For example can I assume that FSF Free? YES for versions 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 Full Name Short Name FSF Free? Upstream URL Creative Commons Attribution license CC-BY Yes http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ and then assume that FSF Free? NO for versions 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 of: Full Name FSF Free? Upstream URL Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs No http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ [cid:image001.jpg@01CCE021.89D63040] Marcus Lucero | Data Library Engineer | Palamida, Inc. 215 Second Street, 2nd Fl | San Francisco, CA 94105 Direct dial: 1.415.777.9400 x155 email: mlucero(a)palamida.com<mailto:mlucero@palamida.com> | http://www.palamida.com<http://www.palamida.com/blog>

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal February 2012