legal October 2020

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

6 participants
3 discussions

ASL 2.0 with exceptions
by Zdenek Dohnal 24 Nov '20

24 Nov '20

Hi all, I'm trying to package lprint https://github.com/michaelrsweet/lprint which has Apache Software License 2.0 with exceptions for GPLv2 and LGPLv2. CUPS has a similar license and it was marked as fine for Fedora in this thread [1] . Unfortunately, there isn't a valid short name for 'ASL 2.0 with exceptions' at [2] - would it be possible to add the short name into the table or should I just use simple 'ASL 2.0'? Thank you in advance and have a nice day, Zdenek [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org… [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses -- Zdenek Dohnal Software Engineer Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C

8 17

JPL NAIF/Spice toolkit license
by Mattia Verga 30 Oct '20

30 Oct '20

The libpasastro package is going to bundle the NAIF/Spice toolkit from Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The source code seems to be publicly available, no license file is included with the code, but in the headers there's this license text: THIS SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS WERE CREATED BY THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (CALTECH) UNDER A U.S. GOVERNMENT CONTRACT WITH THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA). THE SOFTWARE IS TECHNOLOGY AND SOFTWARE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE UNDER U.S. EXPORT LAWS AND IS PROVIDED "AS-IS" TO THE RECIPIENT WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTIES OF PERFORMANCE OR MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE (AS SET FORTH IN UNITED STATES UCC SECTIONS 2312-2313) OR FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER, FOR THE SOFTWARE AND RELATED MATERIALS, HOWEVER USED. IN NO EVENT SHALL CALTECH, ITS JET PROPULSION LABORATORY, OR NASA BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES AND/OR COSTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR INJURY TO PROPERTY AND LOST PROFITS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER CALTECH, JPL, OR NASA BE ADVISED, HAVE REASON TO KNOW, OR, IN FACT, SHALL KNOW OF THE POSSIBILITY. RECIPIENT BEARS ALL RISK RELATING TO QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED MATERIALS, AND AGREES TO INDEMNIFY CALTECH AND NASA FOR ALL THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS RESULTING FROM THE ACTIONS OF RECIPIENT IN THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE. Is this license acceptable for inclusion in Fedora? I have a doubt about the part "PUBLICLY AVAILABLE UNDER U.S. EXPORT LAWS"...

3 4

Redistributable license for Copr
by Miroslav Suchý 22 Oct '20

22 Oct '20

I have a wish. I am an product owner of Copr service. Currently, you can build in Copr only packages with the same good licenses as you can do in Fedora. However, in Copr we do not need to be as strict as Fedora. Fedora does not allow license which are ok to redistribute, but you cannot modify it. Do we have some example of license which is: * forbidden in Fedora, * the only reason for that is that it does not allow modification? Can we have at least one such license allowed for Copr? -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys

4 6

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal October 2020