legal January 2015

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

16 participants
12 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

reg. fedora name as trademark
by Sindhu S 14 Oct '15

14 Oct '15

hi I noticed there is a website called usefedora.com that sells a product to make online schools. Is this a violation of any trademark that redhat might hold with regards to the Fedora name? Thanks! -- -Sindhu

4 3

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

19 Mar '15

Hi, we are working on improving the abrt integration in the Fedora Workstation for F22. Part of this is adding a 'automatic bug reporting' setting to the privacy panel in the control center (see the last mockup in https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gnome-design-team/gnome-mockups/master/sy… ) The design suggests that we should include a link to privacy policy of the OS vendor here. I've been pointed at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:PrivacyPolicy as the existing Fedora privacy policy, but that seems entirely focused on Fedora the project, not on the OS itself. It also does not mention coredumps (and the associated data we may collect) at all. Could you add a section about that here, or should there be a separate page describing the privacy expectations when using Fedora, the OS ? Matthias

11 27

04Font licensing
by Jason L Tibbitts III 25 Jan '15

25 Jan '15

Recently a package (apx) was found which bundled a font. A discussion with the apx developers can be found at https://github.com/projecthamster/apx/issues/4 The question is whether the apx developer's statement that he received written permission to relicense the font as CC-BY is sufficient, or if Fedora needs to get that proof somehow and include it as %license text. Thanks, - J<

3 4

GPLv3+GPLv2 with runtime exceptions
by Laurent Rineau 22 Jan '15

22 Jan '15

The license of Intel TBB [1] is "GPLv2 with exceptions". The license of CGAL [2] is "LGPLv3+ and GPLv3+ and Boost". Since CGAL-4.5, some modules of CGAL have parallelization, implemented using TBB. I wonder if the license "GPLv2 with exceptions" is compatible with GPLv3+. Can Fedora ship CGAL applications, under GPLv3+, that use TBB? [1]: TBB https://www.threadingbuildingblocks.org/ https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/tbb/ [2]: CGAL http://www.cgal.org/ https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/CGAL/ -- Laurent Rineau http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LaurentRineau

1 0

Legally questionable images in cairo-dock-plug-ins (under review)
by Jan Pokorný 21 Jan '15

21 Jan '15

Hello, I am reaching to solicit feedback on the items pointed out in: . https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912#c2 - small icons resembling the company logos as per the file name . https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912#c4 - GUI bitmap resembling that of StarCraft II (discovered only thanks to an honest file name) Also I am afraid there is no scalable way to discovery such cases, but would be keen to know any hints. There may be similar cases present in the existing Fedora packages (I actually pointed out the Firefox case in the comment, but this may be somewhat exceptional), so having some at least a bit capable (keyword based?) detector might benefit Fedora en masse. -- Jan

1 0

Legality of Sourcing
by Somers-Harris, David | David | OPS 16 Jan '15

16 Jan '15

Hello! I'd like to get CentOS to publish errata in updateinfo.xml just like RHEL does, but we hit a snag in the CentOS mailing lists in that we're not sure where we're allowed to legally get that data. My current understanding is that it's illegal to 1. Scrape the webpage 2. Scrape updateinfo.xml from the Red Hat repository But that it might be fine to get the data from the redhat-announce emails. Can anybody confirm whether my understanding is correct? Personally I optimistically think that Red Hat would be willing to just hand over updateinfo.xml to the CentOS project, especially since "Red Hat + CentOS" happened (http://community.redhat.com/centos-faq/), but the people on the CentOS list are not as optimistic. If anybody can speak into this it would be very helpful, because if we can resolve the legal question and get errata in CentOS then I think it would benefit not only the CentOS project but the whole Red Hat family as well. Thanks, David

1 0

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Privacy policy
by Marek Brysa 14 Jan '15

14 Jan '15

Hi Matthias and Florian, I wasn't subscribed to the list so I can't reply directly to the thread. The data contained in the automatic bug report (uReport) is described here: https://github.com/abrt/faf/wiki/uReport It was designed with anonymity as a requirement and doesn't contain any user sensitive data, only a simple backtrace and some statistical info like OS version and related package versions. We don't save IP addresses where the reports are coming from. Reporting to Bugzilla may contain sensitive data (coredump), but is manual, for advanced users only and the user is required to do a review of the data. If you need anything more or to clarify something, please don't hesitate to contact us. Thank you. Best regards, Marek

3 2

Can Copr use rpmfusion?
by Miroslav Suchý 06 Jan '15

06 Jan '15

I would like to clarify (and put in FAQ): Can projects, which reside on Copr use rpmfusion (and generaly other restricted repos) if: 1) it is purely runtime dependency for those packages? (IMO yes, it is allowed). 2) it is used for runtime and buildtime and result is dynamicaly linked (not sure, but I would say allowed, but IANAL) 3) is is used for runtime and buildtime and result is sticaly linked (IMO not possible). -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys

2 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal January 2015