legal May 2019

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

12 participants
7 discussions

Adding openhantek to fedora repo
by Vascom 04 Jun '19

04 Jun '19

Hi. It is my second attempt to add openhantek software to Fedora repo. First variant contain nonfree firmware and was added to rpmfusion nonfree. Now all nonfree firmware was removed by upstream and project use only GPL firmware. More information here https://github.com/OpenHantek/openhantek/issues/240#issuecomment-494361989 My Review Request https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713232 Please clarify may I add this to Fedora now or not. -- Best Regards, Vasiliy Glazov FAS: vascom

3 4

Public Domain - preferred wording for "license"?
by Richard W.M. Jones 28 May '19

28 May '19

Yes yes I know the public domain isn't a license :-) Say that we want to write some software (code examples to go along with our LGPLv2+ library), and we want to basically give these examples away as much as possible without any strings attached for any use whatsoever (because the examples encourage people to adopt our library), and we also want to include these examples in a Fedora package, is there a preferred form of wording that we can put into the example files to express this? Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW

4 4

Analog Devices License
by Chris Smith 25 May '19

25 May '19

I'm wishing to create a new package which has a dependency on source code from Analog Devices. The files include a license that I'm not sure is compatible or not. I understand that it is possibly based upon BSD? An example is a file here: https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/no-OS/blob/master/ad9361/sw/util.h Is this license acceptable for Fedora?

1 0

The JSON License
by Robert-André Mauchin 23 May '19

23 May '19

Hello, I'm encountering a package licensed with the JSON License, which seems to be a MIT derivative with the additional clause of: « The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. » https://spdx.org/licenses/JSON What is the status of this license in Fedora? I think I recall an issue with a linting tool in Javascript with a similar clause and it was considered non- free. Best regards, Robert-André

2 1

Licenses for AGG
by Jason L Tibbitts III 21 May '19

21 May '19

Just wanted to double check the proper License: tag for the following license file. I believe it should be "Copyright only or BSD", but our page for Copyright only doesn't use exactly the same text and the plethora of BSD licenses is always fun. This software (and a bunch of other things) has been bundled into a different piece of software and has never been individually listed, I'm trying to fix that now. Note also that the software authors seem to have lost control of their domain so the URL is not valid. - J< The Anti-Grain Geometry Project A high quality rendering engine for C++ http://antigrain.com Anti-Grain Geometry has dual licensing model. The Modified BSD License was first added in version v2.4 just for convenience. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. It's well proven and recognizable. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#ModifiedBSD for details. Note that the Modified BSD license DOES NOT restrict your rights if you choose the Anti-Grain Geometry Public License. Anti-Grain Geometry Public License ==================================================== Anti-Grain Geometry - Version 2.4 Copyright (C) 2002-2005 Maxim Shemanarev (McSeem) Permission to copy, use, modify, sell and distribute this software is granted provided this copyright notice appears in all copies. This software is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty, and with no claim as to its suitability for any purpose. Modified BSD License ==================================================== Anti-Grain Geometry - Version 2.4 Copyright (C) 2002-2005 Maxim Shemanarev (McSeem) Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1 0

terms and conditions
by Jean-Baptiste Holcroft 16 May '19

16 May '19

Hello, we have terms and conditions in getfedora.org, see for example at the bottom of this page: https://getfedora.org/en/workstation/download/ This content is marked for translation, and some of us did translate it, others didn't. I'm in favour or translating it as we can't respect something we don't understand, but I don't know what are legal consideration here... Would the addition of a sentence saying only the English terms apply would help? A Czech contributor told us only the Czech content would count if translated. What should be the right balance between make sure the non English people understand it and the strict Legal aspect of it? -- Jean-Baptiste Holcroft

1 0

Eclipse trademark policy
by Florian Weimer 10 May '19

10 May '19

<https://www.eclipse.org/legal/logo_guidelines.php> says this: | Unless otherwise agreed to in advance in writing (which may be in | email form) by Eclipse, the following restrictions apply: | […] | 3. Nobody other than Eclipse open source projects may develop or | maintain software packages that use 'org.eclipse' in their | namespace. An important use of the 'Eclipse' Trademark is the | 'org.eclipse' string used on all namespaces for Eclipse open source | projects. This naming convention is used to identify code that has | been developed as part of an Eclipse open source project. Doesn't this make software that uses classes in the org.eclipse.* non-free because changes (for software maintenance or otherwise) are not allowed? Other namespaces are affected as well: | Use of the 'jakarta', 'ee.jakarta', or 'org.jakarta' namespaces is not | permitted unless authorized in advance in writing by Eclipse. (But I don't think this concerns anything shipped by Fedora.) | Use of the 'org.locationtech' or 'org.polarsys' namespaces is not | permitted unless authorized in advance in writing by Eclipse. The org.locationtech restriction impacts the jts and spatial4j source RPMs. Thanks, Florian

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal May 2019