I am planning to package Geant 4 for Fedora, but I noticed Geant4's
license is different from an usual one, which can be found here [1], I
don't know if this is acceptable, if so, can you please add this to
the 'Good License' list?
And this toolkit can be funicational only with a number of datasets,
mostly released by National Nuclear Data Center, I can't find any
license attached to those data files. National Nuclear Data Center
gives a term of use here [2] saying
> Users should feel free to use the information from NuDat 2 (tables and plots) in their work, reports, presentations, articles and books.
A general citations list of those datasets can be found here [3].
Seems that all of that data is royalty-free but instead of being
released as a part of a software, it is more likely to be released as
scientific papers. I think the term here [4] can apply here, but
unsure.
So I need help from the legal team to determine if this is acceptable.
[1]: https://github.com/Geant4/geant4/blob/master/LICENSE
[2]: https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat2/help/index.jsp
[3]: https://geant4.web.cern.ch/support/data_files_citations
[4]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/L…
have the ADT Pulse security system (www.adt.com), which uses an iControlOne hub that is managed with software that is written and copyrighted by "iControlOne". The software itself says to go to "[http://www.icontrolone.com/]" to see open source license information.
When I go there and then click the link for the "Open Source Attributions" page, that brings up a list of software, licences, and whether or not they have modified the code.
One of the entries in the list is:
./external/elfutils http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:OSL1.1
Furthermore, the site says "Modified versions of open source software available upon request.", but they have ABSOLUTELY NO contact information nor any method listed to contact them.
With no way to actually make the request, their statement about "being available upon request" is nothing short of a fraudulent misstatement.
As such, this company is clearly violating the terms of the fedora license, as they provide no method for actually requesting such a copy of the software--and there is no visible way to even find any contact for the actual company itself.
Sincerely,
...Rob Stitt
rob(a)robstitt.com
Hello,
I have a review request for a firmware: Boot firmware (ATF, UEFI...) for
Mellanox BlueField:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1846139
I would like some opinions on whether this is acceptable firmware. The binary
contains open source code for which the license are documented, but no code
source is provided, only the resulting binary firmware.
Thanks for any help,
Robert-André
Looking for example at git-lfs:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/git-lfs/blob/master/f/git-lfs.spec
I am afraid that the license field is wrong. Since the Go packages are
statically linked, that means also content of all the BR is part of the
binary packages and therefore should include their licenses. This also
applies to Rust and all other statically linked packages.
I believe the guidelines should be amended to handle this scenario and
all the packages fixed appropriately.
Thoughts?
Vít
In this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1846175
review request, the upstream license is
https://github.com/trojan-gfw/trojan/blob/master/LICENSE
That is a GPLv3 with the exception:
In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders give
permission to link the code of portions of this program with the
OpenSSL library under certain conditions as described in each
individual source file, and distribute linked combinations
including the two.
It looks like a GNU General Public License v3.0 only, with Classpath exception, but I can't tell.
Anyone can help me? Thanks in advance!
Hi, I have a question about exFAT in Fedora. I would like to package
exfatprogs[1] (new userspace exFAT utilities from Samsung) for Fedora
but exFAT is still listed in the forbidden items[2]. I assume this was
not updated when Microsoft allowed including the exFAT driver in kernel
and exFAT should be allowed now. But I'm not a legal expert so it's
possible I'm missing something here. So my question is simple: can we
package exfatprogs for Fedora now or not? Thanks.
[1] https://github.com/exfatprogs/exfatprogs
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items
--
Vojtech Trefny
In May 2017, Rich Turner from Microsoft mentioned that a Fedora release would be coming to WSL (https://web.archive.org/web/https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/new-…). In June 2019, Matthew Miller from Fedora said there was a "blocker [in] the legal agreement for [the Fedora Project] to put the installer in the [Microsoft] store" (https://web.archive.org/web/https://twitter.com/mattdm/status/1140957608653…). I'm unable to find anything on the wiki (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Legal) or here in the legal mailing list that explains either the cancellation or the blockers. Normally I'm able to find great explanations regarding legal issues, so this must have slipped through the cracks.
1. What are the legal blockers in the MS App Developer Agreement (https://web.archive.org/web/https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/windows/… I noticed some language regarding FOSS that might not be GPL compatible. If that's not the right agreement, which one is and what are its issues?
2. WSL 2 introduced a boilerplate project to connect new distros (http://web.archive.org/web/https://github.com/microsoft/WSL-DistroLauncher). I believe (haven't tested; please correct me if wrong) it can be run only using newer Microsoft FOSS tools under an MIT license. Could this tool be used in an official capacity? If not, what are the blockers?
3. WSL 1 was explicitly not FOSS (http://web.archive.org/web/https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/1). As far as I know, WSL 2 still relies on Hyper-V, so, even hypothetically supposing everything else about WSL 2 is open source, could WSL 2 fall under acceptable licensing criteria? Microsoft discussed some of the tweaks they made if the hypothetical is unrealistic (http://web.archive.org/web/https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/shipp…).
4. Tom Callaway (a Fedora legal liaison w/o notable mutant powers http://web.archive.org/web/https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Spot) provided some excellent suggestions for Microsoft two years ago regarding Microsoft packages being accepted by the Fedora Project (http://web.archive.org/web/https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le…). Are there similar suggestions users can send to Microsoft to champion acceptance?
In doing research to present these questions, I think I have a general idea regarding WSL. However, earlier in the legal thread I linked (http://web.archive.org/web/https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le…), Tom explicitly asks for no idle speculation, so I'd prefer an experienced opinion.
I really appreciate all the hard work that goes into this. As a developer, not a lawyer, this topic can be very esoteric at times. Microsoft has been making an effort to move away from EEE in recent years, so getting some perspective from the Fedora team regarding their efforts would be very useful to FOSS stewards.
Thanks for your time! Have a rad day.