legal November 2020

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 participants
3 discussions

Brainpool Curves in Fedora (openssl, libgcrypt, gnupg)
by Timothée Ravier 06 Apr '22

06 Apr '22

Hi everyone, The ECC Brainpool Curves [1][2] are currently not available in Fedora as according to this BZ [3], this needs Fedora Legal approval. Could someone from the legal team take a look to see if there are any blockers regarding Brainpool Curves inclusion in Fedora? Thanks! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic-curve_cryptography#Implementation [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5639 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413618

9 21

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

License for package scummvm
by Christian Krause 15 Nov '20

15 Nov '20

Hi, during the update of the package scummvm I reviewed its license and stumbled over some difficulties: - the main parts of the source code seem to be GPLv2+: https://github.com/scummvm/scummvm/blob/branch-2-2/COPYING - however, parts of scummvm are using a variety of BSD-like licenses as well as LGPLv2+, please see the various COPYING.* files here: https://github.com/scummvm/scummvm/tree/branch-2-2 As far as I understand, these additional licenses are compatible with GPLv2+. My concrete question is: Is there a need to list the other licenses in the "License" tag as well or is "GPLv2+" sufficient? If all licenses need to be listed, would that be in this case: "GPLv2+ and BSD and LGPLv2.1+ and OFL" ? Note 1: It looks like that the TTF fonts under GPLv3+ (COPYING.FREEFONT) are not installed in Fedora (but they are present in the src package). Note 2: The Suse distribution seems to use "GPL-2.0+" and Debian has references to all licenses: https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main /s/scummvm/scummvm_2.2.0+dfsg1-1_copyright Thank you very much in advance for the advice. Best regards, Christian

3 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal November 2020