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. :)
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:05:54AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 05/27/2009 12:00 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >> The OPL has served us very well for a long time, I'm sad to see us
> >> move from it, but at this point the writing is clear. We gain a lot
> >> by going with a proper CC license.
> > Pardon my noobness, but what is it that we gain? I don't have any
> > objections to changing per se, but I'd like to know what the argument
> > is before I support it. :-)
> Discussions starting at
> Short version: CC BY SA is a much more widely used license allowing for
> more sharing of content and it is better known and understood as well.
Let's make sure we keep our various legal minds roped in. I know that
Spot mentioned Red Hat Legal may be very much in favor of going with
CC BY-SA, so that may a problem solved before we had it. :-)
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
I have not looked at the final draft, but as I understand it the purpose of
issuing eupl 1.1 was to make it osi compliant. So it *should* be good now.
On May 29, 2009 9:35 AM, "Caolán McNamara" <caolanm(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On this list previously the EUPL v1.0 was considered unacceptable for
Since then, there is now a EUPL v1.1, http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl
does that fix the problems, or remain unacceptable ?
Assuming that the EUPL v1.1 remains unacceptable, can someone e.g. dual
licence something as EUPL v1.X and say LGPLv2 in order to make it
acceptable for us.
Fedora-legal-list mailing list
Hello, I am starting a web-based computer retail store, selling computer
systems that have Linux pre-configured. I want to offer Fedora 10
(eventually 11), Ubuntu LTS and possibly a couple more distros to choose
from. The website is www.stitzcomputers.com and I need to ask a couple
of legal questions.
Does Fedora accept donations, and if so, where can I find a URL to put
on my site for this? Also, I will donate a part of every system sale
($10 USD) to the distro that the customer chooses to be installed on
Can I use the Fedora logo on my website for the purpose of promoting my
product and linking back to Fedora websites?
Although I am not charging for Linux directly, one could argue that I
will profit from each distro offered because it essentially becomes part
of the product that I am selling for a profit. Do I need permission
from Fedora before I can offer Fedora to be pre-installed on my computer
What level of support for the distro do I need to offer? Can I count on
the Fedora Forums to offer the support my customers will undoubtedly
I am going to need to take advantage of any exposure my company can get,
so with this in mind, is there any means of advertising on your sites or
getting mentioned (and linked) here as a provider of Fedora-based
Can I offer Red Hat Enterprise Linux as well, and what would be the
benefits to my customers?
Thanks in advance for your time and attention devoted to this matter,
I'll look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely, Richard Stitz
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: mono, not just moonlight
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:44:07 -0700
From: lee johnson <neighborlee(a)gmail.com>
>From what I see on groklaw etal,, the same risks apply to mono as does
moonlight , ie: patents.
IF so , page needs to change to reflect that mono is also not allowed in.
I shall keep an eye out on this, and thx for your help.
Fedora-websites-list mailing list