legal April 2008

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

12 participants
12 discussions

Xerox license
by Mamoru Tasaka 30 Apr '08

30 Apr '08

Hello. Now I am reviewing synopsis [1]. Some of the files in synopsis uses Xerox license as below: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 1995, 1996 Xerox Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Use and copying of this software and preparation of derivative works based upon this software are permitted. Any copy of this software or of any derivative work must include the above copyright notice of Xerox Corporation, this paragraph and the one after it. Any distribution of this software or derivative works must comply with all applicable United States export control laws. This software is made available AS IS, and XEROX CORPORATION DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION CONTAINED HEREIN, ANY LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE SOFTWARE OR ITS USE IS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED, WHETHER ARISING IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) OR STRICT LIABILITY, EVEN IF XEROX CORPORATION IS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This seems MIT-ish, however I wonder if the terms of "compliance with US laws" make this license GPL incompatible. For synopsis, if this is LGPLv2+ compatible it is okay. So would you tell me if - this is enough Free for Fedora - this is LGPL/GPL compatible If this is GPL incompatible, I would appreciate it if this license is named and added to Fedora legal wiki page. Regards, Mamoru [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438543

2 1

Yahoo Public License 1.0
by Rahul Sundaram 30 Apr '08

30 Apr '08

Hi http://www.zimbra.com/license/yahoo_public_license_1.0.html Is this license acceptable for Fedora? Rahul

2 1

Fair license, Naumen License
by Tom Callaway 25 Apr '08

25 Apr '08

A few other licenses got looked at by the lawyers: The Fair License and the Naumen Public License are both Free and GPLv2/v3 Compatible. The tables have been updated accordingly at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing Thanks, ~spot

1 0

Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 (CPAL)
by Russell Harrison 25 Apr '08

25 Apr '08

The Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 is listed in the Unknown Licenses section of the Licensing page on the Fedora Project wiki. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-efb930193d6fc665a78c2774f715c6… I think the OpenProj project management application would make an excelent addition to the Fedora repos but I'm not sure its licence is compatable with the Fedora packaging policies. http://openproj.org/openproj http://projity.com/license/index.html Has this license been evaluated by the Fedora team, and if so what was the outcome of that evaluation? Thanks, Russell Harrison

3 6

MeepZor Consulting Public Licence (MCPL) - good or bad?
by Robert Scheck 24 Apr '08

24 Apr '08

Good evening, is the MeepZor Consulting Public Licence (MCPL) a good or a bad license? License is here http://meepzor.com/packages/autoresponder/LICENCE.txt - suggestions? Greetings, Robert

2 4

Clamav plugin and Claws
by Rahul Sundaram 22 Apr '08

22 Apr '08

Hi http://www.thewildbeast.co.uk/wordpress/2008/02/29/claws-mail-clamav-gplv2-… Rahul

1 0

Question about Xen figlet artistic license & Fedora rules
by Daniel P. Berrange 16 Apr '08

16 Apr '08

I've just noticed that the Xen source tre includes a copy of the figlet source code. This appears to be licensed under the original non-clarified artisitic 1.0 license which is on the forbidden list. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-d8cc605dd386091c8b6be97b8a43fb… The differences between the original & clarified licenses are rather subtle though, so I'd like someone to confirm. I'm attaching the LICENSE file that Xen includes in its source tree at xen/tools/figlet/LICENSE If this is indeed the forbidden version I'll push this upstream to get Xen to remove figlet. Dan. -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, Boston -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|

2 1

What license it is?
by Pavel Shevchuk 10 Apr '08

10 Apr '08

I want to submit spec for eet, but don't know what license it is. Developers call it old-style BSD, but for me it looks closer to MIT feh variant. Also, it's very close to license used for e16 components which is named "MIT with advertising" on fedora licensing page. What to write in "License" field of spec? Thanks in advance http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#feh COPYING file from source tarball: Copyright (C) 2000 Carsten Haitzler and various contributors (see AUTHORS) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies of the Software and its Copyright notices. In addition publicly documented acknowledgment must be given that this software has been used if no source code of this software is made available publicly. This includes acknowledgments in either Copyright notices, Manuals, Publicity and Marketing documents or any documentation provided with any product containing this software. This License does not apply to any software that links to the libraries provided by this software (statically or dynamically), but only to the software provided. Please see the COPYING.PLAIN for a plain-english explanation of this notice and it's intent. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. -- http://scwlab.com

2 1

EULA -> License Agreement
by Paul W. Frields 10 Apr '08

10 Apr '08

Richard Fontana sent me an interesting note that I hadn't had time to follow up 'til now. It concerns whether Fedora should prefer the use of the term "License Agreement" over "EULA," the latter of which he felt sounded too much like a proprietary software-ism. And if you think about it, he's right -- what does "end user" mean when any user can potentially redistribute? There *IS* no theoretical end to a Fedora supply chain. I've cc'd him here in case he wants to comment further. I'd like to move/rename the wiki page at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/LicenseAgreement and similarly with the other pages. Fixing the link in firstboot would require fixing all the PO strings as well -- but because the content doesn't change, that's a trivial elbow grease exercise. I'll bring that to Mr. Lumens, along with an offer to make the changes, provided (1) people agree with the change, (2) Chris is in agreement, and (3) we get a rel-eng buy-in for this trivial change. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug

5 8

Possible new CLA
by Paul W. Frields 09 Apr '08

09 Apr '08

There is a draft of a new CLA being circulated at FreeIPA: https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/2008-April/msg00052.html http://www.freeipa.org/wiki/images/2/2b/GenericCLA.pdf I've asked Legal for a summary of what's changed and why, and an answer to whether all Fedora contributors would need to re-execute this agreement. (I'm betting the answer to the last question is "yes," but that's just an educated guess.) I believe the changes to be minor, mainly to eliminate loopholes and to make this process less onerous in the future, but I'll wait for more information. Ricky Zhou tells me that our CLA signing information is kept in the form of a log table, not a simple date field. AIUI then, we have the ability to find out what CLAs have been executed over the life of an account. If I'm correct about that, I want to say first, thanks for a really good design. :-) Second, since a new CLA is a possibility -- I just want to confirm that we are not *overwriting* old CLA data, i.e. we would maintain a history that user "johndoe" signed a CLA on 2007-10-15 and then again on 2008-04-28. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug

3 5

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal April 2008