legal February 2019

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

4 participants
4 discussions

Broken link to NCSA license
by Jerry James 21 Feb '19

21 Feb '19

On this page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing The link to the "NCSA/University of Illinois Open Source License" (abbreviation "NCSA"), namely this URL: http://otm.illinois.edu/uiuc_openSource returns a 404. It looks like this is the correct URL: https://otm.illinois.edu/disclose-protect/illinois-open-source-license Regards, -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/

2 1

transgrp license
by Jerry James 14 Feb '19

14 Feb '19

For many years now, the gap package has bundled 3 sets of data files describing mathematical structures (groups). I am working on updating the Fedora package to the latest release, version 4.10.0. In this version, those 3 sets of data files have been split out into separately distributed entities, with their own home pages and release schedules. They all grew new license terms, too. I am worried about the license on one of them, transgrp (see https://www.gap-system.org/Packages/transgrp.html). It reads: This library containing data and access functions, its parts are licensed in different ways. - In the belief that mathematical truth is universal and not owned or licenseable, the mathematical content can only be acknowledged: Groups of degree up to 15 are as described in Conway/Hulpke/McKay (LMS. Journal Comp. Math, Vol 1.) and the sources quoted therein. Groups of degree up to 30 were determined by Hulpke (J.Symb.Comp). Groups of degree 32 were determined by Cannon and Holt (Exp.Math.). Groups of degree 33-47 were determined by Holt. - The actual way of storing the groups and associated data, and the arrangement of the groups, is licensed under the artistic license 2.0: https://opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-2.0 If you distribute software that claims to use or include the GAP transitive groups library it must include the actual data lists verbatim. - The functions accessing the data files are licensed under GPL2 and under GPL3. I would call this license "Artistic 2.0 and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)", except that I am worried about the sentence that begins "If you distribute software...". That sentence refers to the data files. There is no code in them, just formal descriptions of mathematical structures. Is that sentence a problem? Thank you, -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/

2 8

Fwd: proj datumgrid licenses
by Elliott Sales de Andrade 08 Feb '19

08 Feb '19

Resending after subscribing; please excuse any duplicate emails. Hi, I'm looking to update proj, and also add the new optional datumgrid files. Fortunately, they are meticulous about licenses and they are all annotated for the main package [1], European files [2], North American files [3], and Oceania files [4]. For the main and European datasets, there are some files licensed under the License Ouverte [5]. It's designed to be compatible with CC, OGL, and ODC-BY, but I don't see this one listed on our licensing page. Can someone confirm whether or not the License Ouverte is acceptable in Fedora? There are also some files that are "Free redistribution is allowed and welcome", which I think might be okay for data and not code, but some clarification there would also be helpful. FWIW, at least one file with those licenses is packaged in Debian (though I realize we have other concerns.) [1] https://github.com/OSGeo/proj-datumgrid/blob/master/README.DATUMGRID [2] https://github.com/OSGeo/proj-datumgrid/blob/master/europe/README.EUROPE [3] https://github.com/OSGeo/proj-datumgrid/blob/master/north-america/README.NO… [4] https://github.com/OSGeo/proj-datumgrid/blob/master/oceania/README.OCEANIA [5] https://www.etalab.gouv.fr/licence-ouverte-open-licence -- Elliott

2 1

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal
by Matthew Miller 02 Feb '19

02 Feb '19

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 04:03:17PM -0500, John Harris wrote: > Even taken to an extreme, it would likely be sufficient to link to Fedora's > sources on any software used to provide MongoDB as a service, assuming their > service itself is free software. As I understand it, the requirement is not just to make the source code available, but to make it available _under the terms of this license_. As suggested, please take further dicussion to legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org (cc'd). -- Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> Fedora Project Leader

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal February 2019