legal March 2015

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

15 participants
14 discussions

objenesis - files with unclear licensing
by Michal Srb 09 Mar '15

09 Mar '15

Hi folks, Package "objenesis" in Fedora contains two files with following license header: /** * COPYRIGHT & LICENSE * * This code is Copyright (c) 2006 BEA Systems, inc. It is provided free, as-is and without any warranties for the purpose of * inclusion in Objenesis or any other open source project with a FSF approved license, as long as this notice is not * removed. There are no limitations on modifying or repackaging the code apart from this. * * BEA does not guarantee that the code works, and provides no support for it. Use at your own risk. * * Originally developed by Leonardo Mesquita. Copyright notice added by Henrik St\u00E0hl, BEA JRockit Product Manager. * */ Does this mean that these files are licensed under ASL 2.0 as the rest of the objenesis project? [1] Thanks, Michal [1]: http://objenesis.org/license.html

2 1

license question about a new package
by Martin Gansser 08 Mar '15

08 Mar '15

Hi, I have a question about the packet xvst, can it be included in fedora or belongs it to rpmfusion. However, I am unsure what regards the downloaded content. But the technical possibility of copy-protected porn download could be a problem of License Terms. On the other hand, we also have youtube-dl, officially in Fedora. How should I proceed here? the scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9169191[https://3c.web.d… Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/xvst.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/xvst-2.5.2-1.20140804gitcbfa… Thanks for your feedback.

2 1

license question about a new package
by Martin Gansser 07 Mar '15

07 Mar '15

1 0

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [Fedora-packaging] questions about license file migration
by Björn Persson 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 04:38:16PM +0100, Björn Persson wrote: > > 2: When a package has a list of authors separate from the license file, > > should that list also be tagged as a license file, or is it considered > > regular documentation? It seems to me that *who* gives out a license is > > important information that belongs together with the license. > > With a big "I'm not Fedora Legal" disclaimer, I think the answer here > is really... it depends. > > The intent here is primarily to make it possible to exclude bulky > documentation for containers and other space-constrained installations > while keeping legally-required license statements in place. Authorship > files may or may not be part of that. Then I suppose I should ask Fedora Legal, so I'm CCing the legal list. If it were a legal requirement, then I suppose it would also apply when the author's name is written in a README file together with a lot of other information. I don't remember seeing any explicit requirement to include a separate file with a list of authors. It just feels weird to have a license without a licensor. There are some licenses that contain phrases like "the above copyright notice", but in those cases it's in the same file. Björn Persson

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal March 2015