legal October 2010

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

12 participants
9 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

Verifying Fedora from unofficial remixes that have removed the Fedora trademarks
by Jóhann B. Guðmundsson 02 Nov '10

02 Nov '10

Greetings. So I've been wondering how we can measure usage of Fedora vs unofficial remixes that have removed the Fedora Trademarks and while speaking with Seth regarding one of the ideas I had on how we could potentially implement this he pointed it out to me that we might be legally prohibited to gather this information with or without explicit user consent and forwarded me to you guys to straighten this out. So my question to you guys is. Is there anything legally prohibiting or restricting us on verifying and gather information if users are running Fedora or are running some unofficial remix that have removed the Fedora trademarks? If the answer is yes. What are we allowed to do? What are we not allowed to do? If we are not allowed to gather this data in anyway or form can the unofficial remix be legally bound to notify us of their existence and or provide us with that data so we could have some kind of an idea on how many remixes are out there which Fedora is "upstream" for? Regards JBG

6 9

mixing (A)GPLv3+ and GPLv2 sources in a python project
by Dan Horák 22 Oct '10

22 Oct '10

Hi, I'm doing a review for OpenERP [1] client [2] and server [3], all written in Python. The client in version 6.0 uses AGPLv3+ for most of its files and GPLv2 for few of them (imported 3rd party library in bin/SpiffGtkWidgets/Calendar). Is such mixing possible? The client in version 5.x uses GPLv3+ for the majority of files, the rest is the same GPLv2 which is in my opinion not possible. Dan [1] http://www.openerp.com/downloads [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641271 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641261

2 2

LGPL exception
by "Guillermo Gómez S." 22 Oct '10

22 Oct '10

I have the following LICENCE_ADDENDUM file in FOX source and need to know if i can move forward with it and package it. krgds Guillermo (Gomix) ------------------------ http://www.neotechgw.com http://gomix.fedora-ve.org

2 1

Packaging Mangler for Fedora
by Christopher Svanefalk 20 Oct '10

20 Oct '10

Hello all, for those who have not heard of the project, Mangler ( www.mangler.org <http://www.mangler.org> ) is an open-source client for Ventrilo, not affiliated with Flagship Industries or the original Ventrilo client. I was wondering if anybody from the Fedora team has examined this project, and know whether there are any legal stumblingblocks to packaging it with Fedora? It seems evident that the project has been implemented by some kind of reverse-engineering, but the web page seems to have little info on the matter. It does not seem as transparent as other similar projects, such as Wine. Any views on this? Thanks for any and all info! Kind regards, Christopher Svanefalk, student, Sweden. _______________________________________________________________ Hitta kärleken med hjälp av vårt matchningstest - <a href="http://spray.matchaffinity.se/?mtcmk=614114">Klicka här!</a>

2 1

Legal requirements for the Multi-Desktop Live media
by Christoph Wickert 18 Oct '10

18 Oct '10

We, the EMEA ambasadors plan to do a multi-desktop spin for Fedora 14. This is a dual layer DVD with all desktop spins on it: * Desktop spin (a.k.a the spin that must not be called GNOME spin) * KDE Spin * LXDE Spin * Xfce Spin * Moblin Spin in i686 and x86_64 (therefor we need to do dual layer). Everything is tied together with a boot menu. The board has said they would approve the spin and grant it the usage of the Fedora trademark but * we must not refer to GNOME as GNOME but as the 'desktop' * they want it tested first. We are fine with these two requirements, but on IRC Jesse indicated that there might be other problems. Given that * the spin only consists of 100% Fedora packages * the spin only consists of approved Fedora spins * the board grants us the use of the Fedora trademark * we have download location for the image on Fedora infrastructure * we put a readme on the spin whith the download location of the SRPMs are there any other legal requirements we need to take into account? If so, please tell us ASAP. We need to figure this out ASAP in order to have media for the Release events. Any help and advice you can give us is highly appreciated. Regards, Christoph

1 0

Reasons for not including MPlayer in main repository?
by Stefan Parviainen 15 Oct '10

15 Oct '10

Hi all, I have an application that I would like to package, but it has a dependency on mplayer. It would, therefore, be nice to get a version of mplayer into the Fedora repositories. I know the mplayer project has had some legal difficulties regarding the license previously, but these seem to have been solved some time ago (e.g. Debian includes a version on mplayer). Currently the project is released under GPLv2. The main issue nowadays is probably patents. Apparently support for some formats can not be included without breaking some patents. Does anyone on this list have an idea which formats are problematic from the point of view of the Fedora project? Would removing support for these formats make it possible to include a stripped version of mplayer in the Fedora repositories? MPlayer is a fairly well known piece of software, has this problem been discussed somewhere before? -- Stefan Parviainen

5 10

// No warranty; no copyright -- use this as you will.
by Julius Davies 14 Oct '10

14 Oct '10

Quick question: I see 4 lines of comments in a java source file that might pertain to copyright: JTidy - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/jtidy Particular file is src/org/xml/sax/SAXParseException.java -------------------------- 2 // No warranty; no copyright -- use this as you will. 3 // $Id: SAXParseException.java,v 1.1 2000/11/14 16:49:04 garypeskin Exp $ 27 * @author David Megginson, 28 * <a href="mailto:sax@megginson.com">sax(a)megginson.com</a> -------------------------- Maybe this can be classified as effective license = "public domain"? ps. Thanks so much for your help in 2009. It resulted in this academic paper: "Understanding and Auditing the Licensing of Open Source Software Distributions" http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1847953 -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) $ sudo apt-get install cowsay $ echo "Moo." | cowsay | cowsay -n | cowsay -n http://juliusdavies.ca/cowsay/

2 1

LatticeMico32 open source license agreement
by Shakthi Kannan 06 Oct '10

06 Oct '10

Hi, I request you to kindly go through this LatticeMico32 open source license agreement, and let me know if it is an acceptable license for Fedora: http://shakthimaan.com/downloads/notes/lattice-semiconductor-toolchain.LICE… The license can be downloaded after creating an account at: http://www.latticesemi.com/dynamic/index.cfm?fuseaction=view_documents&docu… Thanks! SK -- Shakthi Kannan http://www.shakthimaan.com

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal October 2010