legal November 2015

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

7 participants
5 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

Understanding of 'Compatibility Matrix' granularity?
by Pavel Raiskup 25 Nov '15

25 Nov '15

The GPL Compatibility Matrix [1] says statements like: "I want to release a project under:", "I want to copy code under:" and "I want to use (link to) a library under:" I found this terribly confusing. While majority of FOSS projects have a lot of binaries and libraries, each of them might be licensed differently. I suggest to change that wording to: "I want to release a part of project (e.g. binary or library) under:" And similarly for the remaining parts of [1] wiki page. Sorry if I missed some important fact. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#GPLCompatibility… Thanks, Pavel

1 0

FreeSurfer/FSL license issues for NeuroFedora
by Morgan Hough 16 Nov '15

16 Nov '15

Hi there, We are packaging neuroimaging research tools for a new SIG. There are two packages that are very widely used that we could use some advice on. The first is FreeSurfer - https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/ which has this license: https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/FreeSurferSoftwareLicense The second is FSL - http://fsl.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl/fslwiki/ http://fsl.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl/fslwiki/Licence I know that neurodebian packages FSL with the following header: This package is autobuildable by the Debian buildd network as it's license imposes no restrictions on reproduction, modification, transmission or transference as long as there is no financial return (see license below). neurodebian also started packaging FreeSurfer but it was never completed. To do so I know they removed a few tools that are mentioned as falling under a separate license (tkmedit, tksurfer, etc.). I will find out more about why they abandoned this effort as their github repository for it has been deleted. Thanks in advance for your time. Cheers, -Morgan

3 4

Have the US MP3 patents expired?
by Joshua J. Cogliati 15 Nov '15

15 Nov '15

I would like to ask if MP3 patents in the US have expired. Based on my analysis, I believe that the MP3 (MPEG-1 Layer III) patents have expired. While it is possible I have calculated the dates wrong, I have double checked them, and I have provided my reasoning and examined how the previous patent expiration calculations were done. Of the ones listed in the email to fedora devel: http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2007-November/msg00028.html Here are the ones that are not expired based on that email: US Patent 5703999 expires November 18, 2016 US Patent 5924060 expires July 13, 2016 US Patent RE39,080 expires April 25, 2023. US Patent 6009399 expires April 16, 2017 US Patent 6185539 expires February 6, 2018 I believe that all the other patents listed in that email have expired. I would like to discuss each of them. For calculating the patent term, I am primarily using the information at: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2701.html ================================================== Claim: US Patent 5703999 expires November 18, 2016 My belief: US Patent 5703999 expired at the latest on December 30, 2014. The November 18, 2016 expiration was calculated from 20 years after the filing date of November 18, 1996. However, this patent is actually a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/338,618, filed as PCT/DE93/00448 May 18, 1993. Because it is a continuation the original date of May 8, 1993 needs to be looked at. Therefore it contains a specific reference to an earlier filed patent, so by 35 U.S.C. 154, the term is 20 years from the "from the date on which the earliest such application was filed. " This would be May 8, 2013. However because the international application was filed before June 8, 1995, the patent may be one with "the greater of the “twenty-year term” or seventeen years from the patent grant. '999 was granted on December 30, 1997, so 17 years would be December 30, 2014. So the actual date US Patent 5703999 expires may be December 30, 2014. So US Patent 5703999 expires at the latest on December 30, 2014 so this patent is expired. Patent: 5703999 Filed: 18 nov 1996 Granted: 30 dec 1997 Expiration: 32 feb 2015 Summary: Process for reducing data in the transmission and/or storage of digital signals from several interdependent channels Notes: http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5703999 file+20: [2016, 11, 18] related_patent+20:[2015, 2, 32] ================================================== Claim: US Patent 5924060 expires July 13, 2016 My belief: US Patent 5924060 expired either April 4, 2011 or August 29, 2007 The July 13, 2016 expiration was calculated as 17 years after the grant date of July 13, 1999. However this is a continuing application. "A patent granted on a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application that was filed on or after June 8, 1995, will have a term which ends twenty years from the filing date of earliest application for which a benefit is claimed " Since the continuation was filed on March 20, 1997, the date should be 20 years from the first filing date. This is I believe is either Ser. No. 07/177,550, filed on Apr. 4, 1991 or application serial No. PCT/DE87/00384, filed Aug. 29, 1987. These have 20 year dates of April 4, 2011 or August 29, 2007. Both of these dates have passed, so this patent is now expired. Patent: 5924060 Filed: 20 mar 1997 Granted: 13 jul 1999 Expiration: 14 jan 2011 First Date: 14 jan 1991 Summary: Digital coding process for transmission or storage of acoustical signals by transforming of scanning values into spectral coefficients Notes: http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5924060 file+20: [2017, 3, 20] related_patent+20:[2011, 1, 14] This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/650,896, filed on May 17, 1996, (now abandoned) which was a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/519,620, filed on Sep. 25, 1995, (now abandoned) which was a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/977,748, filed on Nov. 16, 1992, (now abandoned), which was a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/816,528, filed on Dec. 30, 1991, (now abandoned), which was a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/640,550, filed on Jan. 14, 1991, (now abandoned), which was a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/177,550, filed on Apr. 4, 1991, (now abandoned) as international application serial No. PCT/DE87/00384, filed Aug. 29, 1987, claiming priority to foreign appl. No. P3629434.9, filed Aug. 29, 1986. ================================================== Claim: US Patent RE39,080 expires April 25, 2023. My belief: US Patent RE39,080 expired May 6, 2014. This expiration was calculated as 17 years from the grant date of the reissue of April 25, 2006 However it is a reissue of Patent 5627938. From http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1405.html "The maximum term of the original patent is fixed at the time the patent is granted. While the term may be subsequently shortened, e.g., through the filing of a terminal disclaimer, it cannot be extended through the filing of a reissue. " So we need to calculate the term of the of 5627938. This is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/844,811, filed on Mar. 2, 1992. 5627938 was granted on May 6, 1997. 5627938 was filed before June 8, 1995, its term is the greater of 17 years from grant or 20 years from first filing date. So these are May 6, 2014 or March 2, 2012, so the expiration is May 6, 2014. This date has passed, so this patent is expired. Patent: RE39080 Filed: 22 sep 1994 Granted: 06 may 1997 Expiration: 06 may 2014 Summary: Rate loop processor for perceptual encoder/decoder Notes: Reissue of 05627938 filed 13 aug 2002 granted 25 apr 2006 http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=RE39080 file+20: [2014, 9, 22] related_patent+20:[2008, 12, 32] grant+17:[2014, 5, 6] http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5627938 ================================================== Claim: US Patent 6009399 is required for MP3. My belief: US Patent 6009399 is not an MP3 patent. '399 was filed in April 16, 1997, with a related foreign patent filed in April 26, 1996. Both these dates are well after the MP3 specification came out. ISO/IEC 11172-3 was published in August 1993, so the specification is prior art. Secondly, looking at the claims, they are using two or more psycho acoustic models. MP3 encoding can be done with one psycho acoustic model, so I believe it is possible to create an MP3 encoder that does not infringe this patent. http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6009399 ================================================== Claim: US Patent 6185539 is required for MP3 My belief: US Patent 6185539 is not an MP3 patent '539 was filed in May 26, 1998 with a PCT filed in February 19, 1997. Both these dates are well after the MP3 specification came out. ISO/IEC 11172-3 was published in August 1993, Secondly, looking at the claims, most of them mention being a modification of ISO/IEC 13818-3:1995 which is the MPEG-2 specification. The description claims that it is an enhancement to allow low bit rate encoding of ISO/IEC 13878-3 (MPEG2 layer 3). So I believe that this is at best an enhancement of MPEG-2 layer 3. http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6185539

1 0

perl-Unix-Mknod license
by Jitka Plesníková 13 Nov '15

13 Nov '15

Hello, I'm packaging CPAN module Unix::Mknod to Fedora. I am not sure about the license below. Is it MIT? Could you please help me find the proper license? Thank you, Jitka -- http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/PIRZYK/Unix-Mknod-0.04/lib/Unix/Mknod.pm Copyright (c) 2005-2008 University of Illinois Board of Trustees All rights reserved. Developed by: Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the ``Software''), to deal with the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimers in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the names of Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this Software without specific prior written permission. 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 CONTRIBUTORS 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 OR OTHER DEALINGS WITH THE SOFTWARE.

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal November 2015