legal August 2012

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

12 participants
11 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

perl-FCGI licence
by Petr Šabata 04 Sep '12

04 Sep '12

No response so far. Perhaps someone here could provide some insight? Thanks in advance, Petr ----- Forwarded message from Petr Šabata <contyk(a)redhat.com> ----- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:21:55 +0200 From: Petr Šabata <contyk(a)redhat.com> To: emmanuel.seyman(a)club-internet.fr Subject: FCGI licence Hi Emmanuel, I was just looking at our perl-FCGI package and noticed something really weird in its source files, namely the following disclaimer in os_unix.c and os_win32.c files: This file contains proprietary and confidential information and remains the unpublished property of Open Market, Inc. Use, disclosure, or reproduction is prohibited except as permitted by express written license agreement with Open Market, Inc. This is pretty ugly. Do we have such agreement? I'd ask on the legal list directly but you might know something more about this... Thanks, Petr ----- End forwarded message -----

3 4

IBPP License
by Michal Minář 23 Aug '12

23 Aug '12

Hello, I'd like to package a wt toolkit [1], which bundles also IBPP [2] library, that is licensed under IBPP license. Could you please check, whether this is acceptable license for Fedora project? --------------------------- LICENSE TEXT ---------------------------------------------- IBPP License v1.1 ----------------- (C) Copyright 2000-2006 T.I.P. Group S.A. and the IBPP Team (www.ibpp.org) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization ("You") obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files covered by this license (the "Software") to use the Software as part of another work; to modify it for that purpose; to publish or distribute it, modified or not, for that same purpose; to permit persons to whom the other work using the Software is furnished to do so; subject to the following conditions: the above copyright notice and this complete and unmodified permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software; You will not misrepresent modified versions of the Software as being the original. 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 of other dealings in the Software. --------------------------- LICENSE TEXT END ------------------------------------------- Thank you in advance. Michal Minar [1] http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt [2] http://www.ibpp.org/

2 1

"University of Michigan" license
by Ken Dreyer 16 Aug '12

16 Aug '12

Hello, I'm packaging mod_waklog, which is under "The University of Michigan" license - looks like yet another MIT variant. What is the proper License: tag to use in my RPM? - Ken Copyright 2005 Regents of The University of Michigan All Rights Reserved. Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the name of The University of Michigan not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission. This software is supplied as is without expressed or implied warranties of any kind. The University of Michigan c/o UM Webmaster Team 4251 Plymouth Road Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785

2 1

xpp2 license - Indiana University 5-clause BSD-style addition?
by Stanislav Ochotnicky 13 Aug '12

13 Aug '12

I was doing a re-review of xpp2 package (XML PullParser) and found that the spec file had "BSD" as license. However license file[1] is none of those listed[2]. Can someone review it and put it there? Or maybe it's already there under different non-BSD name, that I couldn't find so please point me in the right direction). Thanks, [1] http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/xpp2-license.txt [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD -- Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky(a)redhat.com> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno PGP: 7B087241 Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com

2 1

gnome-boxes-nonfree license
by Zeeshan Ali 08 Aug '12

08 Aug '12

Hi, If you recall we had some discussion about shipping and usage of product logos in Boxes before on this list and fedora board list[1]. We were shipping these logos in gnome-boxes package itself but it made many people unhappy[2] so we had to put them in a separate package. Now the questions are: 1. What 'License' string should be used on the fedora package? 2. Is it acceptable to have it in default fedora repository or it must go to rpmfusion (or some other third party repository)? Would appreciate comments/answers on the package request ticket itself: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845031 -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali [1] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2012-February/01136… [2] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=671251

1 0

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] License question
by Tom Callaway 08 Aug '12

08 Aug '12

On 08/08/2012 08:22 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 12:43 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: >> On 08/07/2012 11:16 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 10:44 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: >>>> On 08/07/2012 07:38 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>>>> I don't recognize the text of this license in a piece of software I need >>>>> to package as a dependency. The license listed on PyPi is "Freeware" >>>>> which doesn't seem right (and isn't a valid option anyway) but the >>>>> actual license text looks more permissive, except for the bit about "The >>>>> Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." That clause looks like it >>>>> might cause us some trouble... >>>>> >>>>> Can I get a legal opinion? (The complete sources of the utility are >>>>> attached, including the license text in question). >>>>> >>>>> I'm also going to contact upstream to see if I can get a license >>>>> clarification. >>>> >>>> As several other people have noted, this is the infamous jsmin license. >>>> The upstream jsmin author takes a perverse pleasure in people ramming >>>> headfirst into this nonsensical clause, and has repeatedly stated that >>>> he will not remove it or reword it in such a way to resolve the issues >>>> it causes. >>>> >>>> http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code has some of the >>>> backstory. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, this is useful to hear. It was exactly the JSMin package I was >>> trying to deal with. That's most unfortunate. I'll contact the Review >>> Board upstream and let them know that their dependency on this package >>> will get them into trouble. >> >> I believe that v8 has a re-implementation of jsmin from scratch to work >> around this issue, it may be useful as a replacement. > > > > Following up on this further, I just discovered that the package > python-webassets is bundling jsmin (complete with unacceptable license) > in Fedora. > See /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/webassets/filter/jsmin/jsmin.py in > python-webassets-0.7-1.fc17.noarch > > I assume this is cause for alarm. Yep. Please open a bug and block FE-Legal. ~tom == Fedora Project

1 0

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] License question
by Tom Callaway 07 Aug '12

07 Aug '12

On 08/07/2012 11:16 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 10:44 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: >> On 08/07/2012 07:38 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> I don't recognize the text of this license in a piece of software I need >>> to package as a dependency. The license listed on PyPi is "Freeware" >>> which doesn't seem right (and isn't a valid option anyway) but the >>> actual license text looks more permissive, except for the bit about "The >>> Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." That clause looks like it >>> might cause us some trouble... >>> >>> Can I get a legal opinion? (The complete sources of the utility are >>> attached, including the license text in question). >>> >>> I'm also going to contact upstream to see if I can get a license >>> clarification. >> >> As several other people have noted, this is the infamous jsmin license. >> The upstream jsmin author takes a perverse pleasure in people ramming >> headfirst into this nonsensical clause, and has repeatedly stated that >> he will not remove it or reword it in such a way to resolve the issues >> it causes. >> >> http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code has some of the >> backstory. > > > Thanks, this is useful to hear. It was exactly the JSMin package I was > trying to deal with. That's most unfortunate. I'll contact the Review > Board upstream and let them know that their dependency on this package > will get them into trouble. I believe that v8 has a re-implementation of jsmin from scratch to work around this issue, it may be useful as a replacement. ~tom == Fedora Project

1 0

License question
by Stephen Gallagher 07 Aug '12

07 Aug '12

I don't recognize the text of this license in a piece of software I need to package as a dependency. The license listed on PyPi is "Freeware" which doesn't seem right (and isn't a valid option anyway) but the actual license text looks more permissive, except for the bit about "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." That clause looks like it might cause us some trouble... Can I get a legal opinion? (The complete sources of the utility are attached, including the license text in question). I'm also going to contact upstream to see if I can get a license clarification.

4 3

new license: JDBM License
by Andy Grimm 02 Aug '12

02 Aug '12

There's currently a package called JDBM up for review. Its license is much like ASL 1.1, but not identical, so I'd like to have it reviewed. The license is here: http://jdbm.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/jdbm/jdbm/LICENSE.txt?revision=1.1&p… The package review is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844033 Thanks. Andy

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal August 2012