legal December 2017

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

3 participants
3 discussions

libdvdcss package in COPR
by Michal Novotny 10 Jan '18

10 Jan '18

Hello, is it alright to host libdvdcss package in COPR or should it be deleted? (more info here: https://www.videolan.org/legal.html). The licence is ok (GPL) and it's not listed here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items But I am not sure if it goes well with US regulations. See COPR specific regulations here: https://docs.pagure.org/copr.copr/user_documentation.html#what-i-can-build-… Thank you Michal Novotny

5 5

Ocaml documentation license
by Florian Weimer 03 Jan '18

03 Jan '18

Should Fedora distribute content under the Ocaml documentation license? The license says: “ The present documentation is copyright © 2013 Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA). The OCaml documentation and user’s manual may be reproduced and distributed in whole or in part, subject to the following conditions: • The copyright notice above and this permission notice must be preserved complete on all complete or partial copies. • Any translation or derivative work of the OCaml documentation and user’s manual must be approved by the authors in writing before distribution. • If you distribute the OCaml documentation and user’s manual in part, instructions for obtaining the complete version of this manual must be included, and a means for obtaining a complete version provided. • Small portions may be reproduced as illustrations for reviews or quotes in other works without this permission notice if proper citation is given. ” For program source code, this would clearly not be allowed because derivative works are not permitted. Are such restrictions permitted for documentation licenses in Fedora? Thanks, Florian

2 2

Relicensing Cura to LGPLv3+ (but is still uses AGPLv3+ and GPLv3)
by Miro Hrončok 04 Dec '17

04 Dec '17

Hi there, recently, Cura, a 3D printing software by Ultimaker and its community have been relicensed from AGPLv3+ to LGPLv3+ [0][1]. When updating Cura in Fedora, I forgot to check, and it's still listed as AGPLv3+. However, I'm not sure whether I can change the tag to LGPLv3+, because it uses other software with "stronger" licenses. In fact, there seem to be a problem already with Uranium (python-uranium SRPM). Cura uses CuraEngine (AGPLv3+) trough a protobuf interface [2]. I'm unsure whether a protobuf interface makes the AGPLv3+ "infect" Cura. I'd guess it does. Cura uses (Python imports) Uranium (currently also listed as LGPLv3+ in Fedora) that imports PyQt5 (GPLv3). I'm confident that PyQt5's GPLv3 "infects" both Uranium and Cura to be GPLv3. It's the PyQt5's authors business model [3]. So I guess Uranium should be GPLv3 and Cura should be either GPLv3 or AGPLv3 (no +) depending on the protobuf thing. I wonder if what Ultimaker is doing is even possible, and whether I should ask them about it, but before I do, I'll ask here. BTW Our python-qt5 package (PyQt5 upstream) is listed in Fedora as "BSD and GPLv2+" which I'm confident is not true and I opened [4] while investigating this. Thanks for help. [0] https://ultimaker.com/en/community/50303-cura-license-update-from-agpl-to-l… [1] https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/commit/9a193ad5c5ab5324ad1335dd9adf80fef2… [2] https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/blob/master/plugins/CuraEngineBackend/Cur… [3] https://www.riverbankcomputing.com/commercial/license-faq [4] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520186 -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal December 2017