legal March 2012

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

11 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

Concern about the Clementine music player application
by Ryan Farmer 12 Apr '12

12 Apr '12

Hello, I have some concerns about the Clementine music player application as packaged in Fedora. The concerns involve the Spotify integration feature. The application uses Spotify's trademarks and their copyrighted logo and suggests that the user pull in a proprietary application called "Spotify Core" to use the feature. This effectively makes the feature a stub that pulls in proprietary software. I'm wondering if any of this is in violation of any Fedora packaging guidelines for the issues I've raised. Thank you.

2 1

Floodgap Free Software License: ok for Fedora?
by Julian C. Dunn 29 Mar '12

29 Mar '12

Hi, I'm considering packaging ttytter (a command-line Twitter client) for Fedora, and wondering if its special license is compatible with Fedora's licensing terms: http://www.floodgap.com/software/ffsl/ Can someone give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down? - Julian [ Julian C. Dunn <jdunn(a)aquezada.com> * Sorry, I'm ] [ WWW: http://www.juliandunn.net/ * only Web 1.0 ] [ gopher://sdf.org/1/users/keymaker/ * compliant! ] [ PGP: 91B3 7A9D 683C 7C16 715F 442C 6065 D533 FDC2 05B9 ]

2 1

Product logos in Boxes
by Zeeshan Ali 16 Mar '12

16 Mar '12

Hi, As you may or may not know, we have been working on a new GNOME application, Boxes[1] that (among other things) enables users to easily manage virtuat-machines. This also includes ability to detect operating-systems given an installation media and presenting an intuitive and impressive UI to user to easily install different operating systems with minimum or no interaction. Boxes makes use of a new library, libosinfo[2] that provides information about operating systems (which it internally keeps in an XML database). The reason I'm writing to you is that we really want (more like need) to show logos of different operating systems to the user[3]. In attempt to avoid violating possible trademark issues, here is the approach I took in my (currently unaccepted) patches: 1. libosinfo only provides (HTTP) URLs to logos of particular OS/product but not the logo itself in any form. 2. Boxes downloads the logo at runtime when needed (when user inserts installation media of the OS in question or has installer ISO image in her/his home directory), caches it on disk and presents it to the user as shown in the screenshot[3]. So I would very much appreciate it if you can provide answers to the following questions: 1. Is Boxes (or libosinfo) in this case is violating any trademarks already (assuming only the logos shown in the screenshot)? 2. If the answer to the question#1 is 'no', is there a good chance we violate trademarks of OS products in future? If so, is that avoidable? 3. If the answer to the question#1 is 'yes', could you please advice us how to implement this essential feature without violating any trademarks? -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Gnome3.4 [2] https://fedorahosted.org/libosinfo/ [3] http://static.fi/~zeenix/tmp/boxes+win-fedora-ubuntu-iso-logos.png

5 10

New License for Xdebug
by Remi Collet 15 Mar '12

15 Mar '12

xDebug have been relicensed (don't know exactly when, it seems we have missed that) under "The Xdebug License, version 1.01" This seems to be a "BSD style" (and referenced as on http://pecl.php.net/package/xdebug/2.2.0RC1) The License also says "Based on "The PHP License", version 3.0" I think this license is OpenSource (and BSD like) Can you please confirm, and add it to the "good license list", which seems required to update this package (else we'll have to remove php-pecl-xdebug from the repository) Here is the full LICENSE text https://raw.github.com/derickr/xdebug/master/LICENSE Thanks in advance, Best regards, Remi.

2 1

09 Mar '12

Hi all, The following describes the policy for information controlled by the privacy flag in FAS. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:PrivacyPolicy#Publicly_Available_Perso… It appears to me that the IRC nickname if provided in FAS is also treated as public information in various places now regardless of the privacy settings. If I log into FAS and look at another user who has the privacy flag set I can see the IRC nickname, if I query the fas plugin to zodbot I also see the user's IRC nickname. I do think the IRC nickname should be considered public information if provided (and especially for users with fedora cloaks) so I'm wondering if the privacy policy should just add this as a second exception along with the email address listed in the current policy? I also have a question about what the "your affiliations" in the last bullet in that section refers to? Thanks, John

5 5

How to specify license? CCDL or GPLv2 or ASL 2.0?
by juan.hernandez＠redhat.com 09 Mar '12

09 Mar '12

Hello, I came accross the attached header in the source files for a package I am working on. What is the correct license tag for that? I guess that it should be "CDDL or GPLv2 or ASL 2.0". Is that correct? Thanks in advance, Juan Hernandez

4 5

Liberation Font into an ePub
by Giovanni Venturi 08 Mar '12

08 Mar '12

Hello, I'd like to sell my e-book done in ePub format, so this means I will distribuite the font into the e-book it self. You can simple unzip an ePub file and recoved text, cover image and fonts, so, in this case, Liberation Serif fonts. I read the license here: https://fedorahosted.org/liberation-fonts/ but I didn't understand exactly If I can use the Liberation fonts into the ePub file and I can sell my ePub e-book. If I need a special request to Red Hat or not. I wrote them and they told me to ask here so I did. Is enough to specify in the copyright e-book page that I used Liberation fonts freely donwloadable from https://fedorahosted.org/liberation-fonts/ or it's not needed because information are into the file itself? If I do (on my Linux system): otfinfo -i /usr/share/fonts/TTF/LiberationSerif-Regular.ttf I get: Family: Liberation Serif Subfamily: Regular Full name: Liberation Serif PostScript name: LiberationSerif Version: Version 1.07.1 Unique ID: Ascender - Liberation Serif Designer: Steve Matteson Designer URL: http://www.ascendercorp.com/typedesigners.html Manufacturer: Ascender Corporation Vendor URL: http://www.ascendercorp.com/ Trademark: Liberation is a trademark of Red Hat, Inc. registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and certain other jurisdictions. Copyright: Copyright (c) 2007 Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved. LIBERATION is a trademark of Red Hat, Inc. License URL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/LiberationFontLicense License Description: Licensed under the Liberation Fonts license, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/LiberationFontLicense Vendor ID: 1ASC I get all information I need on the font from the font file it self. If you need more specific information let me know. Have a nice day, Giovanni

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal March 2012