legal July 2020

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

14 participants
8 discussions

Lua Logo license text (restricted modifications)
by Miro Hrončok 08 Sep '20

08 Sep '20

Hello. I try to package a software that shows the Lua logo in it. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834280 The logo's license is: Copyright © 1998 Lua.org. Graphic design by Alexandre Nakonechnyj. Permission is hereby granted, without written agreement and without license or royalty fees, to use, copy, and distribute this logo for any purpose, including commercial applications, subject to the following conditions: - The origin of this logo must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you drew the original logo. - The only modification you can make is to adapt the orbiting text to your product name. - The logo can be used in any scale as long as the relative proportions of its elements are maintained. ---end--- Clearly, this does not allow modifications, but do we have some exceptions for branding? Or do I need to strip the logo out of the package? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

11 28

EUPL v1.2
by Björn 'besser82' Esser 24 Aug '20

24 Aug '20

Hello, I wanted to ask in general whether the EUPL v1.2 [1,2] is an acceptable license for Fedora. If it is acceptable, can we please list it in the wiki as a "good license", please? Thanks Björn [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017D0863 [2] https://opensource.org/licenses/EUPL-1.2

5 9

joke license (McRae General Public License)
by Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 05 Aug '20

05 Aug '20

It seems one of the filter lists (Peter Lowe's adservers list) in uBlock Origin is licensed under this[1] and the author considers it a "joke license"[2]. Nonetheless, it explicitly forbids commercial use, telling the licensee to "stick it..." if they don't agree. uBlock Origin upstream doesn't think this is an issue[3], but I'm not so sure. My plan is to scrub the affected files from the tarball until the author can be convinced to change the license. uBlock Origin can download it on its own, anyway. It's there for convenience only, by default. Am I overly cautious? Is this kind of "filter list" copyrightable at all? Thoughts? [1] https://pgl.yoyo.org/license/ [2] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/7657#issuecomment-657230694 [3] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/7657#issuecomment-657218646 -- Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan

4 5

Is BSD-2-Clause with addition clause allowed?
by Vascom 31 Jul '20

31 Jul '20

Hello. I want to add rtklib in repos and I need to Know about allowing it's license in Fedora. It is BSD-2-Clause but with addition clause: - The software package includes some companion executive binaries or shared libraries necessary to execute APs on Windows. These licenses succeed to the original ones of these software. Full text available here https://github.com/tomojitakasu/RTKLIB/blob/master/readme.txt But I am not include any binary or windows specific files in package.

2 2

Please give your advice in bug 1801519
by Robert-André Mauchin 31 Jul '20

31 Jul '20

Hello, Could you please take a look at bug 1801519? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801519 The package is golang-github-google-licenseclassifier. It contains the text of a large number of licenses to detect them. Some of these Licenses are good for Fedora, other not. Basically am I allowed to distribute the text of these licenses along my package? What it the license status of the text of the licenses? Is each license covered by itself? Best regards, Robert-André

3 2

Determining minimum package review requirements relating to licenses
by Jason Tibbitts 31 Jul '20

31 Jul '20

One of the various reasons for having package reviews is having a human verify that the packager's choice of License: tag is valid. The Packaging Committee is was faced with a request (https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1007) that has us questioning just how much license review is required. Are any of the following acceptable? 1) Trust the packager to do a license review, with no reviewer verification. 2) Trust the output of an automated tool which attempts to detect project licenses (such as askalono). 3) Trust the license tag from a project hosting service such as github? (I understand that the answer may depend on the hosting service.) Depending on what is acceptable, we may be able to reduce bureaucracy a bit. I know that back when I did package reviews, the license review was often the most difficult part. - J<

6 7

Re: FlexiBLAS as BLAS/LAPACK manager - Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal
by Miro Hrončok 04 Jul '20

04 Jul '20

On 01. 07. 20 16:24, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlexiBLAS_as_BLAS/LAPACK_manager > > == Summary == > BLAS/LAPACK packages will be compiled against the FlexiBLAS wrapper > library, which will set OpenBLAS as system-wide default backend, and > at the same time will provide a proper switching mechanism that > currently Fedora lacks. > > ... > > == Scope == > * Proposal owners: Modify the SPECs of the BLAS/LAPACK-dependent > packages to build against FlexiBLAS instead of the current backend > they are using. I wonder, given FlexiBLAS is released under GPL (and not LGPL), whether this means we would need to change the licenses of all non-GPL packages that will be linked to FlexiBLAS to GPL. CCing legal. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

3 6

Re: FlexiBLAS as BLAS/LAPACK manager - Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal
by Susi Lehtola 01 Jul '20

01 Jul '20

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 19:28:53 +0200 Iñaki Ucar <iucar(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote: > I'm no expert, but the FAQ says: > > "You have a GPLed program that I'd like to link with my code to build > a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program > mean I have to GPL my program? (#LinkingWithGPL) > > Not exactly. It means you must release your program under a license > compatible with the GPL (more precisely, compatible with one or more > GPL versions accepted by all the rest of the code in the combination > that you link). The combination itself is then available under those > GPL versions." > > So my understanding is that it's ok for a program to link to FlexiBLAS > if its license is GPL-compatible, not necessarily GPL. But of course > we would need confirmation from legal. The library is GPLv3 only https://gitlab.mpi-magdeburg.mpg.de/software/flexiblas-release#license which already makes it incompatible with many GNU Licenses https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#GPL_Compatibility_Matrix not to mention many other free licenses that are allowed in Fedora https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses -- Susi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal July 2020