legal May 2008

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

9 participants
6 discussions

And another license
by Jon Stanley 04 Jun '08

04 Jun '08

This looks possibly MIT-ish to me. Can someone confirm? (this is for scrip) ! Copyright (c) 1997, 1998 the Regents of the University of ! California. ! ! Unless otherwise indicated, this software has been authored ! by an employee or employees of the University of California, ! operator of the Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract ! No. W-7405-ENG-36 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. ! Government has rights to use, reproduce, and distribute this ! software. The public may copy and use this software without ! charge, provided that this Notice and any statement of authorship ! are reproduced on all copies. Neither the Government nor the ! University makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes ! any liability or responsibility for the use of this software. ! !*********************************************************************** -- Jon Stanley Fedora Bug Wrangler jstanley(a)fedoraproject.org

4 4

GPLv1 license tag?
by Jon Stanley 24 May '08

24 May '08

What would the proper license tag be for something that is licensed under GPLv1 (only)? I don't see such a thing on the license page. (this is for the cleanup project and the package is 'ncview'). I imagine that this would be just GPLv1, right?

3 3

FOSSology
by Rahul Sundaram 24 May '08

24 May '08

Hi, Has anyone here looked at FOSSology? Seems a useful license analysing tool, we can take advantage of. http://fossology.org/about_us Rahul

1 0

libmad
by Ding Yi Chen 23 May '08

23 May '08

Hi, Just wondering whether libmad (http://www.underbit.com/products/mad/) can be included in fedora. It is GPL, but it is also an implementation of MP3. So I am not sure whether we should include it in Fedora. Regards, Ding-Yi Chen

2 1

TrueCrypt
by Luke Macken 17 May '08

17 May '08

Hi, I'm wondering if the latest TrueCrypt license is acceptable for Fedora. http://www.truecrypt.org/legal/license I know there have been issues with various ambiguities in the past, but the rumor on the street is that their license has drastically improved. Thanks, luke

3 2

parts of GLX under non-free licenses
by Robert Schuster 09 May '08

09 May '08

Hi, the Ubuntu-based gNewSense distribution removed parts of GLX because of a license issue[0]. They did so because SGI Public License and SGI Free Software License B are non-free. According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing this is also true for Fedora and the JOGL package was removed because of it. It is known that Debian is aware of the problem since 2003 but has not come up with a solution. The removal of the files breaks apps like compiz-fusion and the like. Is this problem solved in Fedora? If not it might be good if we can get in contact with the copyright holder of those files and ask for a relicensing. Regards Robert [0] - http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00103

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal May 2008