legal March 2013

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

10 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

winetricks
by T.C. Hollingsworth 01 Aug '15

01 Aug '15

winetricks [1] is free software, but I was originally under the impression that it was ineligible for inclusion in Fedora because it is used primarily to download and install non-free software. (That is not it's only function, though--it also does some registry hacks and can manage multiple WINEPREFIXes.) However, some members of the community disagree [2] and say that it might be eligible for Fedora, so we'd like confirmation one way or the other. Thanks! -T.C. [1] http://winetricks.org/ [2] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992#c40

5 7

Usage discrimination in Akismet (WordPress Plugin)
by Jochen Schmitt 31 Mar '13

31 Mar '13

Hello, I'm currently working with a own WordPress blog and have to find out, that the WordPress plugin is only free for personal use. In the readme.txt file you find the folllowing inforatioons: License: GPLv2 or later PS: You'll need an [Akismet.com API key](http://akismet.com/get/) to use it. Keys are free for personal blogs, with paid subscriptions available for businesses and commercial sites. The above cited sentence told be, that commercial sites have to pay a fee, if they wnat to use that plugin. Becuase this violate the Fedora policy, I would like your mind about this situation. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt

3 3

License question
by Nick Bebout 28 Mar '13

28 Mar '13

http://www.conserver.com/LICENSE This appears to be several copies of BSD-like licenses with various copyright holders. Should the License tag just be BSD? nb

2 1

license of catalog subpackages
by Mattia Verga 21 Mar '13

21 Mar '13

Hello, I would like to package some additional catalogs for Skychart, but I have some questions regarding license. As you can see on skychart download page [1], each package has more than one catalog inside. All of these catalogs are known to be public domain, but there's no license file specified either in catalogs or on original websites of the catalogs [2] [3]. Moreover, original catalog data is reworked by skychart's developer to fit the main program, so the result only work in skychart. My question is: can additional catalogs subpackages be the case stated at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Lic… where it's not necessary to include own license? Or should I contact all makers of the source data from wich these catalogs are built and ask them the licenses? Thank you Mattia [1] http://www.ap-i.net/skychart/en/download [2] http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/ [3] http://www.astro.ku.dk/~erik/Tycho-2/

2 1

mysql-python
by Ken Dreyer 21 Mar '13

21 Mar '13

Since the MySQL-python package is licensed GPLv2+, does that mean that any projects which happen to import "mysql-python" must be released under the GPL? - Ken

4 5

License doubts during review of the bijiben package
by Mathieu Bridon 20 Mar '13

20 Mar '13

Hi, I'm reviewing bijiben: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919265 Pierre-Yves is both the submitter of the package as well as the upstream developer. The review is in a state where I think the package can be approved, except for the license. I'm having doubts about the value of the license tag, but that's mostly because it's slightly more complicated than what I've dealt with until now. I've looked at all the source files, and the result appears to me to be: GPLv3+ and (LGPLv2 or LGPLv3) and LGPLv2+ - The LGPLv2+ files are libgd, which is (by design) bundled into bijiben. - The "LGPLv2 or LGPLv3" files come from Evolution - The GPLv3+ is most of the software, it is the source code for bijiben Pierre-Yves simplified that to: GPLv3+ and LGPLv3 and LGPLv2+ Which I don't think is a problem. Could anyone have a look and confirm that the License tag is correct? I'm sure I'm being overly worried for no reason and it's a very simple case, but as I said, I've never reviewed a package with so many licenses before. :) Thanks, -- Mathieu

2 3

Cube game engine license
by Rahul Sundaram 04 Mar '13

04 Mar '13

Hi I have attached the license. Can you confirm whether it is free or non-free? Thanks Rahul

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal March 2013