legal June 2014

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 participants
7 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

License clarification for perl-App-s2p
by Jitka Plesníková 25 Jun '14

25 Jun '14

Hi, I am packaging CPAN module App::s2p to Fedora. The license should be the standard Perl license (GPL+ or Artistic) During review [1], the following license was found in man page of App-s2p-1.001/script/s2p COPYRIGHT and LICENSE This program is free and open software. You may use, modify, distribute, and sell this program (and any modified variants) in any way you wish, provided you do not restrict others from doing the same. Could you state whether the following terms are acceptable for Fedora and what License tag should be used? I need to update license in the RPM. Thank you. Jitka [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1111242

2 1

CC BY-SA 3.0 -> 4.0
by Eric Christensen 13 Jun '14

13 Jun '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Creative Commons is pushing the use of their 4.0 license (which I have no qualms with). Has/can legal review this new license[0] as a drop-in replacement for the 3.0 license[1] we are currently using for Fedora Documentation (with the waiving the rights to enforce Section 4d)? I'm unsure of any benefits or regressions we would have (I haven't personally compared the two and IANAL). Thanks. [0] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode [1] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode - -- Eric - -------------------------------------------------- Eric "Sparks" Christensen sparks(a)redhat.com - sparks(a)fedoraproject.org 097C 82C3 52DF C64A 50C2 E3A3 8076 ABDE 024B B3D1 - -------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJTmgSXAAoJEB/kgVGp2CYvqWwL+QGvjVgaqqzimEBlRBBKcuiF kEKW1iHEif10ndhj7tTgSXOfVlfhftRQWyloHMOVTZN16wQAr7qpTu7+38uWQfXt 04sCC82qxskFHUjpv+f4VkVL/LS3h7IaaV5uf0tZ367Chn9RK2ZLrolww3hw43LO sKsxabDplkVSgoDp3Unzw3JCfIMrl+GWT52QFDK14kSIizyF6QcmX1VZ3o7mTlqp Hn7D48hOGuIxhFs/tms3YwidjDz7INRkIJoBYiykcJQJeB1OSav30pfHVCO9raz6 VqW9vxJXBi/+sB1lq6wXRS0pfWMr/aeG4EOz4Coap9bWggmspDxU+ADyVy68NRNw U8Etka4JxYInppBohn5n4/nZA/hZ1pN8RrZdsIdkptvlkx6iCMpoUhGlgQP7CCFe D4XQf/xT4FjFY8rnnvuhS95JUNyWKPNmvOpdCRDY2QSS2K8bHXZtt4Yd3fW5LbyZ whIsJlaEyeSkqzWlgjGedMW9qMu3a2KIG1Eu3ufmVQ== =p/my -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 6

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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal June 2014