legal July 2010

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

18 participants
17 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

Can anyone take a look at libva(FE-Legal)?
by Chen Lei 27 Jul '10

27 Jul '10

Hi all, libva is a library and tools relating to the VAAPI video playback acceleration specification. libva is included in all major distributions(debian/ubuntu meego opensuse mandriva gentoo etc.) . I need it as a dependecy to package some meego MTF packages. Howerver, the submitter(Adam Williamson) feels that i965-va-driver plugins and many other parts of libva may have some patent issues. Are there any legal guys or developers who are familiar with libva can help to clarify the patent issues in libva? The Review Request is here and waits for a legal review for almost one year: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518546 Thanks a lot! Regards, Chen Lei

1 0

wikipedia has posted our logo source again
by Máirín Duffy 24 Jul '10

24 Jul '10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fedora_logo.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RH-Fedora_logo-nonfree.svg I had a big fight with wikipedia back in 2007 or 2008 and they removed the SVG versions of the logo in favor of PNGs. You can see in the second ink above they even acknowledged that they did it. Yet wikipedia users have posted it yet again. What should we do? ~m

2 2

PETSc license
by Shakthi Kannan 23 Jul '10

23 Jul '10

Hi, Can you please let me know what should be the license for PETSc [1]? http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-as/documentation/faq.html#license http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-as/documentation/copyright.html Thanks, SK [1] Portable, Extensible Toolkit for Scientific Computation (PETSc). http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-as/index.html. -- Shakthi Kannan http://www.shakthimaan.com

3 3

Please define "effective license" (for the love of consistency)
by Orcan Ogetbil 19 Jul '10

19 Jul '10

1) I came across another review with the same license question. The source files have one of the GPLv2, GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ headers each. They get compiled and produce 1 final binary executable. None of the headers (or other source code files) go to the final RPM. What goes to the license tag of the package? Ref: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537325#c4 2) Hypothetical question (although happens rather frequently): What if there was a -devel subpackage and .h files with different licenses ended up in this -devel subpackage? Orcan

8 14

Not sure about this license
by Zan 15 Jul '10

15 Jul '10

It isn't on the approved list, but looks a bit like a modified BSD license to my untrained eye. It is for a piece of software called Gold, that I would like to package for Fedora EPEL. Could someone tell me if it would be okay, and if so what I should put in the spec file? Thanks Jess Copyright (c) 2003 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: · Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. · Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. · Neither the name of the Battelle nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

2 1

Open Source Hardware (OSHW) definition 0.3
by Shakthi Kannan 15 Jul '10

15 Jul '10

Hi, Can you please let me know if the Open Source Hardware (OSHW) [1] definition 0.3 is an acceptable license for Fedora? Version 1.0 is to be released at the Open Hardware Summit [2] at New York City on September 23, 2010. Thanks, SK [1] OSHW. http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW [2] Open Hardware Summit. http://www.openhardwaresummit.org/ -- Shakthi Kannan http://www.shakthimaan.com

2 1

What license is this? BSD or AML?
by Ankur Sinha 14 Jul '10

14 Jul '10

hey, What License would this be? > Copyright (C) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Apple Inc. All rights reserved. > > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions > are met: > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the > documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. > > THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY APPLE INC. AND ITS CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY > EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED > WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE > DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL APPLE INC. OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY > DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES > (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; > LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON > ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT > (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS > SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. > The body matches the BSD 2 clause license[1], but the Copyright makes me think it's an AML[2]. (But I'm no expert) I haven't blocked the review request[3] with a FE-LEGAL because both these licenses are good. Thanks, Regards, Ankur [1] > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD [2] > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Apple_MIT_License [3] > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611010 > "webkitgtk3 - GTK+ 3 port of webkit"

2 1

Tanuki Software Ltd Community License Agreement v1.1
by Ville Skyttä 14 Jul '10

14 Jul '10

Hello, Recent versions of tanukiwrapper are licensed under this license: http://wrapper.tanukisoftware.com/doc/english/licenseCommunity.html Am I right in that they seem to be adding additional restrictions over GPLv2 (e.g. extend the "viral" nature of GPL also to non-derivative/aggregated works), and what's Fedora's take on that license? It's not currently listed in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

2 1

Incorrect use of Fedora logo
by Gerard Braad 14 Jul '10

14 Jul '10

Hi, I noticed the following in the FourSquare application directory. http://foursquare.com/app/foursquare__wordpress I do not think this is appropriate. What would be the best way to deal with this? Gerard -- Gerard Braad — 吉拉德 Project-lead Fedora-MIPS http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:gbraad

2 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal July 2010