legal March 2019

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

6 participants
5 discussions

python-pillow license - MIT? something else?
by Luis Villa 25 Mar '19

25 Mar '19

Hey, all- I was looking upstream at a new-to-me license (PIL license used in Pillow <https://github.com/python-pillow/Pillow/blob/master/LICENSE>). It is MIT-ish, but ... to my mind, definitely not MIT. Line them up side-by-side and you'll see reasonably large differences. (GitHub's `licensee` reports the two licenses as a ~56% match, which is an imperfect measure but indicative) I was considering filing it as a new-ish license at SPDX, so I checked "is this packaged in Fedora", and I see that the Fedora python-pillow spec <https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pillow/blob/master/f/python-pillo…> simply labels this MIT. So my question: what should this be labeled as in Fedora? If the answer is MIT, is there any guidance (formal or informal) on when MIT considers an MIT-ish license close enough? Thanks- Luis

2 2

Re: Use of xml tools
by Tom Callaway 19 Mar '19

19 Mar '19

This is correct. Those files can be used under the MIT license terms. ~tom On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:55 PM Nicolas Mailhot < nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> wrote: > Le 2019-03-19 16:57, Clement Galland a écrit : > > Hi, > Hi, > > > I would like to use some of your files from > > http://pagure.io/fedora-comps.git : > > * comps.dtd > > * comps.rng > > * comps-cleanup.xsl > > > > I would use them for an internal tool, however, because there is no > > license files, I prefer to ask you directly if I can use them. > > I'm only the main author or the rng file, and I'm pretty sure it's a > derived work of the rest. > > I imagine the licensing of the files is basically the same as > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#License_of_Fedor… > > but you should have it confirmed on the fedora-legal mailing list > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot >

1 0

Re: The license of OpenMotif (Open Group Public License)
by Richard Fontana 18 Mar '19

18 Mar '19

> > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 3:36 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > > > Is it necessary that an open source license must allow porting to > > proprietary systems? I don't think so today. But based on what I > > found out about the OpenMotif license, people actually thought that > > back then. This surprises me. Has this changed? I'm not sure if this was at all a concern in the past, but the license is confusing in how it states the "open source" operating system limitation, and it's possible to read it as prohibting, for example, running Open Motif on a privately-modified version of Debian or Fedora. Richard

2 1

BSD-2-Clause
by Fernando Nasser 14 Mar '19

14 Mar '19

Hi, Would it be possible to add to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses and corresponding databases the license: BSD-2-Clause https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause Thanks! P.S.: We currently have only BSD-2-Clause-Patent https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD-2-Clause-Patent

2 3

Lucent Public License (LPL) and GPL compatibility
by Elliott Sales de Andrade 07 Mar '19

07 Mar '19

Hi, The table entry for Lucent Public License (Plan9) lists it as GPL2-incompatible. However, the entry for GPL3 compatibility is undefined. The OSI lists two revisions of the LPL (1.0 and 1.02), and it is not clear if the compatibility table refers one or both versions. Also, the given link is not accessible. -- Elliott

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal March 2019