legal August 2020

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

22 participants
13 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

How to name the license in the spec
by Jaroslav Skarvada 21 Sep '20

21 Sep '20

Hi, the code contains the following text: * <db(a)FreeBSD.ORG> wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you * can do whatever you want with this code, except you may not * license it under any form of the GPL. * A postcard or QSL card showing me you appreciate * this code would be nice. Diane Bruce va3db How to name such license in the spec? thanks & regards Jaroslav

6 13

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

An old legal opinion seems to have been forgotten
by Robert-André Mauchin 25 Aug '20

25 Aug '20

Hello, Could legal give its opinion on this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713604 which is waiting since 2019. Tom added a comment saying he will disciss it internally but no news has been posted since then Best regards, Robert-André

3 3

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

NTP license
by Andy Mender 17 Aug '20

17 Aug '20

Hello, I'm currently reviewing a package which contains a couple of files with an explicit license notice matching the NTP license: https://opensource.org/licenses/NTP A snippet from licensecheck: xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/XlcPubI.h: NTP License (legal disclaimer) xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/XlcPublic.h: NTP License (legal disclaimer) xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcCT.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer) xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcCharSet.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer) xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcUTF8.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer) The problem is that the NTP license is not listed in the licensing guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License… How should I proceed? Best, Andy

3 2

CNEWS license
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen 13 Aug '20

13 Aug '20

Hello, I am trying to package¹ editline <https://troglobit.com/projects/editline/>² for Fedora, which has an unusual license <https://github.com/troglobit/editline/blob/master/LICENSE> that originating from cnews: https://www.openhub.net/licenses/cnews. Let me quote the full license text below too for completeness. Can this be considered a BSD-ish or similar license? Or does it need a new Fedora license tag (CNEWS?)? Thank you, Jens [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867290 Copyright 1992,1993 Simmule Turner and Rich Salz All rights reserved. This software is not subject to any license of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company or of the Regents of the University of California. Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose on any computer system, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: 1. The authors are not responsible for the consequences of use of this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise from flaws in it. 2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either by explicit claim or by omission. Since few users ever read sources, credits must appear in the documentation. 3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. Since few users ever read sources, credits must appear in the documentation. 4. This notice may not be removed or altered.

4 5

QPL with exception
by Jerry James 07 Aug '20

07 Aug '20

As long as we are reviewing exceptions to licenses, I would like to ask about the Frama-C license (http://frama-c.com/). Parts of the code are covered by the QPL. In the source distribution, the file licenses/Q_MODIFIED_LICENSE says: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Generator is distributed under the terms of the Q Public License version 1.0 with a change to choice of law (included below). [snip] As a special exception to the Q Public License, you may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Generator and are not made available to the general public, without any of the additional requirements listed in clause 6c of the Q Public license. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the entirety of clause 6: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements: a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms of these items are also able to receive and use the complete machine-readable source code to the items without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer. b. You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in both machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be able to re-distribute to anyone they choose. c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is that exception worth noting in the License field? Thank you, -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/

2 2

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

Spot's RH mail on legal wiki page
by Honza Horak 05 Aug '20

05 Aug '20

Hey, there is tcallawa(a)redhat.com still mentioned on one place on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main ("Documentation Licenses" section). Please, change it to legal@ as on different places, as the Spot's RH mail does not work any more. Thanks, Honza

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal August 2020