legal May 2014

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 participants
10 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

Linking of GPL-only and GPL-incompatible libraries
by Florian Weimer 25 Aug '14

25 Aug '14

What's Fedora's stance on linking GPL-only libraries into the same process as a library which is considered GPL-incompatible (such as 4-clause BSD) if this linking happens rather indirectly? We currently link psql against both libreadline and libcrypto/libssl (OpenSSL), so if that is okay, more indirect linking should be acceptable as well. However, I'm not sure I'd appreciate that if I were a GPL-only library author who chose that license deliberately (perhaps even with a desire to sell alternative licensing), and some intermediate libraries makes my work available under a more permissive license, only wrapped in a different programming interface. -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team

3 12

Modified version of ASL 2.0
by Parag Nemade 30 Jun '14

30 Jun '14

Hi, I want to know if this http://code.google.com/p/impacket/source/browse/trunk/LICENSE is a valid license which is modified version of ASL 2.0 license. Regards, Parag.

4 5

Including gpl3 code and how that affects other source in project
by Tim Flink 02 Jun '14

02 Jun '14

I'm working on a project that's currently gpl2+ licensed [1] and we want to include some code from a gpl3 project [2]. This code will be an isolated utility used to generate documentation from data contained in other source files. [1] https://bitbucket.org/fedoraqa/libtaskotron [2] https://github.com/ansible/ansible I know that if we went forward with this, the project would need to be distributed as gpl3 but I have some questions around the specifics: Would all the source in our project need to be re-licensed as gpl3 or is it sufficient to have the project license as gpl3 and the existing source files as gpl2+? Assuming that it is possible to keep the existing gpl2+ source as gpl2+, would it be possible to change the project license back to gpl2+ in the future if we were to remove any gpl3 code? Thanks, Tim

4 6

repoze.sphinx.autointerface license
by Jerry James 29 May '14

29 May '14

I'm packaging repoze.sphinx.autointerface and have a question about the license. It is almost the ZPLv2.1 license, but the text identifying the license has been deleted, as has clause 4. Do I still call that ZPLv2.1 in the spec file, or is something else more appropriate? This is the text of the license file: License A copyright notice accompanies this license document that identifies the copyright holders. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions in source code must retain the accompanying copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the accompanying copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. Names of the copyright holders must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission from the copyright holders. 4. If any files are modified, you must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Disclaimer THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. Thank you, -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/

2 2

ZPL links need updating
by Jerry James 29 May '14

29 May '14

The ZPL links in the table at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses lead to a "no such results" page. Here are some suggestions for replacement URLs: http://old.zope.org/Resources/License/ZPL-1.1 http://old.zope.org/Resources/License/ZPL-2.0 http://old.zope.org/Resources/License/ZPL-2.1 Regards, -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/

1 0

Warsow Content License
by Kalev Lember 18 May '14

18 May '14

Hi, Could someone please review the attached Warsow Content License to see if content licensed under those terms is appropriate for inclusion in Fedora? I assume it's not, but I'd be grateful if someone could give an authoritative answer. Thanks in advance, Kalev

2 3

Source Requirements
by Dennis Gilmore 12 May '14

12 May '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, A couple of questions. 1) can we please stop making source isos? the source is available in the source tree. 2) cloud WG wants to be able to produce updates images, what are our requirements to ensuring source compliance with the GPL? Today the sources for livecds and appliance images are only in the source tree and not separated out. if we do updates images some sources will be in the base source tree and some in updates, however the updates sources will go away if the package gets another update. the only single source where we could point people at is koji. Dennis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJS+hz3AAoJEH7ltONmPFDR1icQAKhOvFziBsnYpi+wSYTGZUAH ++P1NeCQ4DKDz046kHJ5bGqw+IPNykwOP9RFKTx2v1ajAcMdvxWhR55+QextwHhn b7lXE84mn+AM2uU64l+dVFireCi+Lh5XAVBO0aHGM5/olw/8DDuoVn+17O6ooaVr mEQ/mGfjUDE+YDIIEcPjJ9HxkvQu3QDedayqThGfRZO4W8nLCBcAtCLm0kLC5Kv7 aVbRghC4wEKLU/PY7HzmlXla6GJfwZ024fE6qrZ6tyN6Rhn1x6xtT4WbU6GUDLKu qZjUDX/p689VnH1PT+W9B0Oy9Z8TkfrtouxfoLVtzEThv3APE2K33H7MyrHS8ORy ii1XHttX2bSmt92Wuj8ceY92oZk00wfTwJ4dUQj4ZQYQbyGAW31uymtiPwTUNTcw 3tgaSCeaI7w1W+dsyKcRVQyiau2WUojGhXdTf2r9dTuAuIGIJogg7iyhCDc45O3m 0u7snSxpYZ/jgpODC45sO/JvevYSD4vzCwFA4vW14jDKobCvLCiPt7atSI/uivwt qO6TiiapgBCtkjYO98Pcqhu5x0xx7jS86iOi+D02hZGWx+7twsOaj6DyaZYuZyaf sbonFLT0zejhcYgE+CAv+zPPeAKmapFZK7Gj3Kb3MWbxpwrWsyrTiy8MgFyp9wDl 9yFR9Bdcrpr+DhhF5KcR =jifW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 7

JBIG2
by Orion Poplawski 06 May '14

06 May '14

Is JBIG2 software allowed in Fedora? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JBIG2#Patents There is already jbig2dec, and we're looking at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094417 levigo-jbig2-imageio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094415 jai-imageio-core-standalone -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal May 2014