The GPLv3 allows certain options to be taken, so that it becomes
compatible with a number of other licences, such as BSD varients.
Samba4 includes a number of pieces of such code in the form of Heimdal
(a Kerberos implementation we currently have bundled), do I have to do
make some special note (other than complying with the restrictions, by
including copyright notices in the docs)?
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
Also CC'ing the Fedora legal list which is also concerned with issues
like the trademark guidelines.
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 17:16 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> CC'ing the Fedora Spins SIG mailing list as this concerns most of the
> subscribers there as well.
> KH KH wrote:
> > 2008/8/26 Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)gmail.com>:
> >> Hi,
> >> I have been keep a tab on rpmfusion progress by reading the archives and it
> >> seems the repository is getting reading for launch soon. Congrats on that.
> >> My primary interest here at the moment is creating a spin based on rpmfusion
> >> and Fedora which Thorsten Leemhuis mentioned as desirable in one of his
> >> earlier mails to this list.
> > I don't know if Thorsten ever mention such "spin" but having both
> > rpmfusion and fedora on the same media is a very hard legal issue.
> > Actually that's even not possible at all without removing the name
> > Fedora from such spin. (meaning removing artworks and some others
> > packages i don't remember).
> FWIW, if RPMFusion wishes to provide and distribute their own version of
> Fedora, including whatever packages not in Fedora, either Free or free
> or not free at all, right now this is enough:
> # Remove the fedora-logos package and include something without
> # Fedora trademarked material
> generic-logos (or: rpmfusion-logos if you have the artwork)
> # Include rpmfusion-release as well
> # Substitute the Fedora name in /etc/fedora-release and /etc/issue,
> # which are both owned by package fedora-release, so that it doesn't
> # pop up in all kinds of weird places such as when booting the machine
> # ("Welcome to .... Press I to start interactive ..." comes to mind).
> # Note that _all_ trademarks are supposed to be in fedora-logos.
> sed -i -e 's/Fedora/RPMFusion/g' /etc/fedora-release /etc/issue
> And you're done.
> > To be more accurate: You can do such spins for yourself (either with
> > free only or with nonfree packages), but you cannot redistribute the
> > spin telling it is Fedora. (because it won't be fedora anymore). But
> > you can (have to ?) tell this work is based (derived?) on Fedora.
> This (being able to say "based on Fedora") is pending the new trademark
> policy at
> I hope this clarifies some of the issues wrt. a RPMFusion spin.
> Kind regards,
> Jeroen van Meeuwen
> Fedora-spins mailing list
Now I am trying to review rsssserver (bug 450409).
First I checked the license issue of this package, then I found some of the codes
are licensed under the below:
Copyright (C) 1999, 2002 NVIDIA Corporation
This file is provided without support, instruction, or implied warranty of any
kind. NVIDIA makes no guarantee of its fitness for a particular purpose and is
not liable under any circumstances for any damages or loss whatsoever arising
from the use or inability to use this file or items derived from it.
Is this license allowed for Fedora? (if so, is this GPLv2 compatible?)
Could someone confirm that the following license is simply a 3-clause
License Terms and Conditions
Copyright (C) 2001-2003 American Radio Relay League, Inc. All rights
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
1. Any redistribution of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the disclaimer shown in
Paragraph 5 (below).
2. Redistribution in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the disclaimer shown in
Paragraph 5 (below) in the documentation and/or other materials
provided with the distribution.
3. Products derived from or including this software may not use
"Logbook of the World" or "LoTW" or any other American Radio Relay
League, Incorporated trademarks or servicemarks in their names
without prior written permission of the ARRL. See Paragraph 6
(below) for contact information.
4. Use of this software does not imply endorsement by ARRL of
products derived from or including this software and vendors may not
claim such endorsement.
5. Disclaimer: This software is provided "as-is" without
representation, guarantee or warranty of any kind, either express or
implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of
merchantability or of fitness for a particular purpose. The entire
risk as to the quality and performance of the software is solely
with you. Should the software prove defective, you (and not the
American Radio Relay League, its officers, directors, employees or
agents) assume the entire cost of all necessary servicing, repair or
correction. In no event will ARRL be liable to you or to any third
party for any damages, whether direct or indirect, including lost
profits, lost savings, or other incidental or consequential damages
arising out of the use or inability to use such software, regardless
of whether ARRL has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
6. Contact information:
American Radio Relay League, Inc.
Attn: Logbook of the World Manager
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06111
Worldwide Web: www.arrl.org
This software consists of voluntary contributions made by many
individuals on behalf of the ARRL. More information on the "Logbook
of The World" project and the ARRL is available from the ARRL Web
site at www.arrl.org.
The upstream Dansguardian website says
Before downloading, please read the copyright for DansGuardian 2. DansGuardian
is not free to download from this website for commercial use.
However, the software itself is GPL-ed (as per the LICENSE file in the
Will there be any issue if it is packaged for and distributed with Fedora ?
There's an open review request at
I have a question about licensing of the home-made livecd of Fedora. I
create a custom livecd of Fedora 9 with my commercial application
(proprietary) on it. This CD serves as a demo CD for my potential customers,
and I intend to redistribute these CDs widely. Am I legal to do this?
Thanks and best regards,
This may be a FAQ, but searching didn't turn it up. If it's not
already documented, perhaps we could get it into the FAQ page because
this question comes up often enough when doing package reviews.
The problem is code which has no license information at all.
Sometimes there are copyright notices, sometimes not, and no mention
whatsoever of any type of license. However, there's a mention of a
license at the upstream web site.
Now, obviously upstream should be prodded to get with the program.
But in the interim, is it sufficient to simply refer to the upstream
web site? Keep a copy of it in the package (in case they decide to
change it for some reason)? Or should this kind of software be
avoided entirely until upstream decides to release a version with a
properly included license?
can you give me "Fedora acceptability statement" for the Open CASCADE
Technology Public License available at
PS: first copy of this mail is moderator's queue since Friday
Fedora and Red Hat package maintainer