legal December 2008

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

13 participants
12 discussions

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CAcert.org license
by Tom Callaway 12 Feb '16

12 Feb '16

On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 23:03 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote: > > >>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway <Tom> writes: > > > > TC> Given that it does not give permission for us to redistribute (the > > TC> cornerstone requirement for Content licenses), this license is not > > TC> acceptable for Fedora. > > > > I guess I'm glad I looked before approving the package, but I have to > > wonder: Do the cacert folks actually want anyone to use their > > certificates? I mean, this prevents basically everyone from using > > them, because they can't come with the OS or the browser. > > Personally, the more I read the document, the more I'm confused. > > "You may NOT distribute certificates or root keys under this > licence"... does this mean we can distribute under a different license? Well, sortof. The wording here is strange because you can get a different license from the CA issuer. We can't just pick a license, but the CA issuer might be willing to give us a different one. > Would it be worth getting in contact with CAcert.org in order to try > and have them allow us to redistribute the root certs under conditions > which are acceptable to the Fedora Project? Probably, yes. :) ~spot

4 6

xBill legal opinion required
by Andrea Musuruane 17 Feb '09

17 Feb '09

Hi all, I'd like to now if xBill is suitable for inclusion in Fedora: http://www.xbill.org/ License, as stated in the man entry, is GPL (no version specified). My concerns regard the use of various logos in the game. Also note that this game has been packaged until 2001 in Red Hat. Regards, Andrea Musuruane.

2 2

Heads-up on new Samba4 licence
by Andrew Bartlett 21 Dec '08

21 Dec '08

Samba4 (which is under review for inclusion into Fedora) will soon ship some data (the Active Directory schema) under less-than-usual licence terms. The attached file gives the text. I believe it is no less free than Free licences on Fonts that require redistribution with software. The review ticket is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 If this causes a problem, presumably the packager can strip setup/ad-schema (and the whole server implementation) from the tarball. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.

2 1

MgOpen font license
by Jason L Tibbitts III 20 Dec '08

20 Dec '08

The license for the MgOpen fonts seems almost identical to the Bistream Vera font license: http://www.ellak.gr/fonts/mgopen/index.en.html#license http://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts Currently our mgopen-fonts pacakge uses "Bitstream Vera" for its license tag, but a query came up in IRC as to whether they really are the same license. The Vera license included a note at the end, after the ALL CAPS section, about the use of certain names in advertising which the MgOpen license does not have, and the MgOpen license included one additional phrase in the third paragraph: "or if the modifications are accepted for inclusion in the Font Software itself by the each appointed Administrator." Are these licenses sufficiently identical to have the same License: tag in Fedora? - J<

2 1

License question regarding Hylafax
by Neil Horman 20 Dec '08

20 Dec '08

Hey all- I was looking to package Hylafax for fedora, and found that its copyright is rather custom. It looks rather like a creative commons license, but since IANAL, I wasn't 100% sure. Heres their copyright: http://www.hylafax.org/content/Copyright Does that qualify as an acceptible license to package for Fedora? Regards Neil

3 2

Old Sun RPC license - what is it?
by Richard W.M. Jones 19 Dec '08

19 Dec '08

In PortableXDR [0] we have used some old (1988) Sun RPC code which has the license text below. The question arose during review for inclusion in Fedora[1] what this license is, and whether it can be included in Fedora. Note that this code has been extensively used and modified all over the place, so if this license isn't free, and if Sun didn't relicense it since 1988, then we may have a problem. For example, glibc: http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/libc/sunrpc/xdr.c?rev=1.28&content… also in FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/lib/libc/xdr/xdr.c?rev=1.15 Suggestions? Rich. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided for * unrestricted use provided that this legend is included on all tape * media and as a part of the software program in whole or part. Users * may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized * to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or * program developed by the user. * * SUN RPC IS PROVIDED AS IS WITH NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND INCLUDING THE * WARRANTIES OF DESIGN, MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR * PURPOSE, OR ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE OR TRADE PRACTICE. * * Sun RPC is provided with no support and without any obligation on the * part of Sun Microsystems, Inc. to assist in its use, correction, * modification or enhancement. * * SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE * INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS, TRADE SECRETS OR ANY PATENTS BY SUN RPC * OR ANY PART THEREOF. * * In no event will Sun Microsystems, Inc. be liable for any lost revenue * or profits or other special, indirect and consequential damages, even if * Sun has been advised of the possibility of such damages. * * Sun Microsystems, Inc. * 2550 Garcia Avenue * Mountain View, California 94043 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [0] http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/portablexdr/ [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467324 -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v

2 1

Fedora GPL Violation
by John Terhune 17 Dec '08

17 Dec '08

We recently purchased a traffic shaping network device from a company called Exinda. While the device performs quite well, from looking at a firmware update image I noticed that it was based on Fedora Core. Nowhere in their documentation is it mentioned they are using GPLed software, and there is no offer to release source code. I opened a ticket with them asking for code under the GPL but was ignored. Would this be the appropriate place be to report such a violation? Here is some of the text from the build script included with the firmware image. The bulk of the image is GPG encrypted. BUILD_HOST_OS="LINUX" export BUILD_HOST_OS BUILD_HOST_OS_LC="linux" export BUILD_HOST_OS_LC BUILD_HOST_PLATFORM="LINUX_FEDORA" export BUILD_HOST_PLATFORM BUILD_HOST_PLATFORM_LC="linux_fedora" export BUILD_HOST_PLATFORM_LC BUILD_HOST_PLATFORM_VERSION="CORE6" export BUILD_HOST_PLATFORM_VERSION BUILD_HOST_PLATFORM_VERSION_LC="core6" export BUILD_HOST_PLATFORM_VERSION_LC BUILD_HOST_PLATFORM_FULL="LINUX_FEDORA_CORE6" export BUILD_HOST_PLATFORM_FULL BUILD_HOST_PLATFORM_FULL_LC="linux_fedora_core6"

3 3

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CAcert.org license
by Jason L Tibbitts III 10 Dec '08

10 Dec '08

>>>>> "MS" == Matthias Saou <thias(a)spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net> writes: MS> Would it be worth getting in contact with CAcert.org in order to MS> try and have them allow us to redistribute the root certs under MS> conditions which are acceptable to the Fedora Project? Those conditions would have to be pretty liberal, since we insist that anyone who gets the package from us also be able to distribute it. An agreement that applies to the Fedora project isn't sufficient. I don't see why they wouldn't want everyone to include their certs, but there's no understanding it. The best thing to do would be to ask them. - J<

1 0

CAcert.org license
by Matthias Saou 10 Dec '08

10 Dec '08

Hi, For the following review : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474549 I would need to know if the "Non Related Persons Disclaimer and Licence" under which the CAcert root certificates files are is acceptable for Fedora or not. Full text here : http://www.cacert.org/policy/NRPDisclaimerAndLicence.php What I see is that it only really applies to liability, and doesn't cover modifications since those wouldn't make much sense. What does bother me somewhat is the last part of the "License" section : "You may NOT distribute certificates or root keys under this licence, nor make representation about them." as well as the fact that liability might be transferred to the Fedora Project if the certificates are shipped in the distribution. IANAL and I found nothing relevant in the "Licensing" wiki page, which is why I'm posting here. Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora release 10 (Cambridge) - Linux kernel 2.6.27.5-117.fc10.x86_64 Load : 0.52 0.55 0.87

3 2

jai-imageio-core license questions
by Adam Goode 09 Dec '08

09 Dec '08

Hi, jai-imageio-core is a Java package from Sun that includes plugins for Java that adds various image codecs, most notably TIFF. It would be really useful to have this in Fedora, so I'm thinking of packaging. Unfortunately, there are a few issues: GOOD: the website claims it is BSD https://jai-imageio-core.dev.java.net/ BAD: it contains jj2000 which doesn't seem like BSD https://jai-imageio-core.dev.java.net/source/browse/jai-imageio-core/src/sh… GOOD: TIFF seems to be BSD https://jai-imageio-core.dev.java.net/source/browse/jai-imageio-core/src/sh… I assume jj2000 can't go in to Fedora. I filed a Sun bugreport about this BSD confusion, but they are quiet on it. Am I wrong? Can jj2000 go in? (It would be useful.) Would I just need to strip jj2000 out of this package to make it ok for Fedora? Thanks, Adam

3 5

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal December 2008