legal June 2021

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

6 participants
4 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

Is the coremark-pro Acceptable Use Agreement acceptable?
by Michel Salim 25 Jun '21

25 Jun '21

Hi, We are looking at packaging coremark-pro, a benchmarking tool: https://github.com/eembc/coremark-pro/ It's licensed under the Apache License 2.0, which is fine, but comes with an Acceptable Use Agreement tied to the authors' trademarks: https://github.com/eembc/coremark-pro/blob/main/LICENSE.md Most of it seems like standard trademark protection boilerplate, but this section in particular seems concerning: 4.1. Publication of Results. A "Commercial COREMARK-PRO License" from EEMBC is required for Licensee to disclose, reference, or publish test results generated by COREMARK-PRO in Licensee’s marketing of any of Licensee’s commercially‐available, product‐related materials, including, but not limited to product briefs, website, product brochures, product datasheets, or any white paper or article made available for public consumption. Is this fine, or is this considered 'legally encumbered' per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items ? Thanks, -- Michel Alexandre Salim profile: https://keyoxide.org/michel@michel-slm.name

3 2

Do we need to strip code with use restrictions from the tarball, or is deleting in %prep enough?
by Miro Hrončok 03 Jun '21

03 Jun '21

Assuming an upstream tarball contains one example file under the BSD license with the following usage restriction: * You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for * use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear * facility. Can we rm that nonfree file in %prep, or do we need to strip it from the tarball as well? My assumption is that we strip content that we cannot even re-distribute from SRPM, which should not be the case here, but I am not sure. Thanks, -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

4 4

Curious maybe FOSS license that I can't identify
by Robert-André Mauchin 01 Jun '21

01 Jun '21

Hello, In a review I came across this License: © Copyright 2000 UserLand Software, Inc. All Rights Reserved. © Copyright 2006-2007 Scripting News, Inc. All Rights Reserved. UserLand Software, Inc. and Scripting News, Inc. are refererred to in the following as "the Companies." This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and these paragraphs are included on all such copies and derivative works. This document may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Companies or other organizations. Further, while these copyright restrictions apply to the written OPML specification, no claim of ownership is made by the Companies to the format it describes. Any party may, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, implement this format without royalty or license fee to the Companies. The limited permissions granted herein are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Companies or their successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE COMPANIES DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. I've found some RFC example like: http://dev.opml.org/spec1.html https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec21.html https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2549 It seems to refer to translation these specifications. I don't know the name of that license. Can anyone identify it and tell me if it's acceptable in Fedora? Best regards, Robert-André

4 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal June 2021