Here were the questions from the French NPO we discussed at SXSW. I
thought that I had sent them over to you earlier, but here they are
First of all thanks for clearing this up, at least this way we won't
waste time trying to find a new name which would anyway not get
Could you please check with them if we could use an acronym without
specifying what it means ?
We were thinking on ideas like:
The idea would be to name the NPO "A²F²" (for example) and specify only
what it means in the objective of the NPO.
Second question, on french law, a NPO needs to have a "mission" (goal,
objective). You were saying last week-end that we should be able to keep
the word "Fedora" in these goals. Could you please check/confirm it ?
Our current goals for the NPO are (roughly translated):
"The NPO has for goal to defend, promote and help the development of
the GNU/Linux distribution FEDORA through the FEDORA project and more
globaly all FOSS which could be associated with it"
Needless to say that removing the word "Fedora" from these goals is
going to make the NPO loss a lot of its "raison d'être" (rational).
Finally, it seems that we never received the paper copy of the trademark
agreement with Red Hat's signature on it. Could you check this out ?
(I added Paul on cc for this question)
Thanks in advance for your help,
* plus A2F2 reminds me a little of H2G2 :)
I am reviewing mpdas https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=680657.
The sources are licensed under BSD license. There is one file in the
sources md5.cpp which has been authored by a different entity and has a
separate license text. The contents look to be from a md5.c file put inside
a cpp file. The license text is close to MIT but I am not completely sure
I have two doubts
1) Is this package acceptable in Fedora? Reason is that if the whole set of
sources are under BSD then this md5.cpp is also under that license. Would
the new author have permission to do this?
2) If yes to @1, should the packager mention two licenses in the spec file?
Lakshmi Narasimhan T V
Hello Tim et al.
Recently, I found out that certain HP devices require binary-only firmware
and plugins. Apparently, this is done via hp-setup, which runs hp-plugin
to download the actual files from www.openprinting.org and copies them
into selected directories under /usr/share/hplip (and puts some udev
config files under /etc/udev/rules.d).
Putting the issue of the requirement of these files for correct device
operation aside, this is wrong, because users end up with files in
system directories which are not owned by any package.
I've searched mailing list archives for answers to no avail.
Therefore, I have the following questions:
For Tim: have you considered doing something similar to RPMFusion akmod,
i.e. modifying hp-setup/hp-plugin to build an appropriate package
on-the-fly? Also, the binary plugins get installed under /usr/share/hplip,
which is against the packaging guidelines (binaries should go in /usr/lib
or /usr/lib64, depending on the arch).
For Tim and legal folks: has anyone tried asking HP to open-source the
plugins and the firmware or at least changing the license for the plugins
and the firmwares to one allowing redistribution? The latter would make
the firmwares acceptable for Fedora and the plugins acceptable for
I have a preliminary spec file for the aforementioned bits, by the way.
I really don't like having files floating around the file system outside
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
lordsawar has a gfdl manual that is installed. Does that need to be reflected
in the license tag such that it should be GPLv2+ and GFDL1.1+, instead of
P.S. I originally asked on devel, but was directed to ask on legal instead.