First, my apologies for cross-posting.
Spot, Pam, et al:
At today's Board meeting there was some significant backlash to the
proposed TM guidelines, specifically the non-software goods section.
The principal issue the Board would like to understand is:
What is the impact of not running requests for trademark approval for
non-software goods through the yet to be created trac instance (as is
currently the case).
e.g. is there a risk to the trademarks from the lack of documentation
of quantity, events distributed at, etc, or does this merely simplify
record keeping/keep someone from looking at the various budget
pages/meeting logs/mailing lists where these things are currently
Additionally, a number of folks present at the Board meeting who are
involved in the acquisition and distribution of Fedora swag were
concerned with the additional overhead, and for clarification offered
up the following workflow that already happens:
Need for swag is discussed and agreed to by regional groups such as
FAmNA, EMEA Ambassadors, in public. Designs either generated or
proofed by Fedora Design (or are designs that have been generated or
approved in the past) and are then ordered. The bill is subsequently
paid by RHT (involving management approval of expense reports,
auditing by finance etc).
This presents the additional questions of:
* Does RHT ultimately paying (and thus at least tacitly, if not
explicitly approving of the usage) for the goods not make this TM
usage on the part of RHT and thus not needing approval?
* Is it permissible for the Board to delegate either to the various
groups within Fedora that produce swag, or perhaps to the regional
community RHT credit card holders, the ability to approve TM usage
within a well defined swag/non-software goods category.
* Despite the non-software goods section in the TM guidelines - swag
has been produced without Board approval for at least the past 4 years
- has there been a delegation of this authority already, or was
perhaps the understanding that RHT footing the bill indicated RHT
2012/2/22 Máirín Duffy <duffy(a)fedoraproject.org>:
> On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 17:44 -0500, David Nalley wrote:
>> Need for swag is discussed and agreed to by regional groups such as
>> FAmNA, EMEA Ambassadors, in public. Designs either generated or
>> proofed by Fedora Design (or are designs that have been generated or
>> approved in the past) and are then ordered
> FWIW there has been more than a trivial amount of swag that has not gone
> through design team approval and print-ready artwork has not been
> proofed with the design team, resulting in incorrect colors (RGB instead
> of correct CMYK colorspace) and the wrong usage of fonts (usually due to
> not flattening fonts to paths) in the final product. For the most part,
> logo manipulations do go through either the logo queue or the Design
> team, but I have been disappointed in the past by designs with errors
> that could have been prevented.
That is true - I can think of a number of instances where that has
been the case, though most of the examples I can think of seem to be a
bit distant, but I've also been far more distant from the preparation
of swag as well.
I've tried to search bugzilla and forums for information on ECDSA
support in the Fedora provided OpenSSH packages, but didn't find
What is the status?
I can't find the link but remember that there was talk about reversing
that decision after some investigation was finished.
If Fedora doesn't plan to ship it with ECDSA enabled, what's the
purpose of the Fedora ECC/TLS Test Server found here:
Just curious about that site and it's relation to Fedora, if Fedora
doesn't support ECC.
On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 15:29 +0100, Laurent Rineau wrote:
> Le mardi 07 février 2012 14:21:53 Laurent Rineau a écrit :
> > From release 4.0, the CGAL libraries will be released under LGPLv3+ for the
> > foundations, and GPLv3+ for the high level packages (instead of LGPLv2 and
> > QPL respectively).
> In the CGAL.spec file, I mentionned "License: LGPLv3+ and GPLv3+". Could not I
> simplify that into: "License: GPLv3+"?
You should probably ask this question on the fedora-legal mailing list
Nils Philippsen "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase
Red Hat a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty
nils(a)redhat.com nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
As part of the effort to package JBoss AS7 for Fedora we need to package
RelaxNGCC. According to the web page the license use is ASL:
But then the only reference to the lincense in the source code itself is
the file attached, which doesn't mention ASL at all. There are no
license related headers in the source files either.
Is it acceptable to include this in Fedora?
Thanks in advance,
In may 2011 i had decided to no longer use windows, allthough i have a
bunch of original software of microsoft, i got fed up of it.
As i'm a scripter / hobby dev, i started to write bash scripts for fedora
to get myself used to it. Now at start i didnt care too much about the
fedora philosophy concerning my scripts.
Time has changed, and i would like to see my scripts as part of the offical
fedora repositry. As of now, my script collection does need some work to be
done, before i can even think about it to get allowed, as i used to install
rpmfusion (free and nonfree, livna and adobe flash repo, in the past even
skype and others).
But before i start this rework/rewrite, i would need some advice what it
may contain, or not. I've written a post at fedoraforum.org (
The questions there are written in general, i copy paste them here and get
more specific to my concern:
* There is rpmfusion-free, may that be installed (not shipped) by something
that is shiped with Fedora? (it irritates me that its named free,
rpmfusion.org states other reasons - without naming them)
* If my script collection includes code-routines that build a program of a
source code that is available to everyone, is that permitted, or depends on
the software going to be built? (specific: Oracle VirtualBox)
* If my script collection checks the system for Third Party repos that
contain non-FOSS software and if available install packages they contain
as/if the user chooses so. Would this behaviour be ok? (specific: livna,
rpmfusion*) ((i was told that will 'violate' policy))
* Found this Adobe lisence in the Fedora License list, does this mean i may
install Adobe Flash from my PROJECT? (I guess not, but its confusing me, so
i have to ask)
* Some repos from repos.fedorapeople.org, are they permitted to be
installed from my script, if i get an agree of the repo maintainer?
What my script collection does in general:
Help to build a system starting of the minimal install, thus i would love
to see it installed with the minimal-install. (one may dream)
Provide scripts to 'tweak' grub2, timeout, default selected, video res, or
write iso files to usb devices, delete tempfiles, change plymouth and
optional rebuild initrd and more.
While the script collection aims to support mainly Red Hat based
distributions (i'm heading towards RHCSA), it also aims to provide
functionality to/on other distributions as well.
For a better overview of its functions, please see these:
* http://sea.hostingsociety.com (updating file links now)
Sadly, i'm not a good documenter.
The script collection i have written is licensed by GPLv3.
Links i had read, but didnt understand all, irritate me, or i dont know how
they apply to me (either one of these apply to the links below):
Thank you for reading.
Simon A. Erat, Switzerland // aka user: sea, on fedoraforum.org
On 03/02/12 12:00, legal-request(a)lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
> Send legal mailing list submissions to
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of legal digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. ii package license (Petr Šabata)
> 2. Re: ii package license (Josh Boyer)
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:04:57 +0100
> From: Petr Šabata <contyk(a)redhat.com>
> To: legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ii package license
> Message-ID: <20120203090457.GA27116(a)rincewind.brq.redhat.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> Dear list,
> I'm packaging the ii IRC client  for Fedora and the
> package reviewer has expressed concerns about its license.
> This software includes, in addition to the main MIT-licensed
> code, the following script:
> I've decided to use "MIT and Public domain" as the package
> license. Would that be correct?
> Thanks in advance,
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784589
I'm looking at python-timelib, a package required for python-mwlib,
something we're trying to use in the Docs Project.
timelib basically exports some functions of PHP's date library as a
Python extension, so the C code for the timelib extension would link
against code from PHP.
timelib is licensed under what it calls the zlib/libpng license:
and PHP has its own license.
Is this legally sane/acceptable in Fedora, or do I need to talk to
upstream and get them to fix it? (How would they fix it -- what kind of
license would they need to change to?)
Ian Weller <ian(a)ianweller.org>
In your list you have posted that the following are all FSF Free? either YES or NO.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives 3.0
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No Derivatives 3.0
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0
Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
Can I assume that this also means that the previous versions (1, 2, 2.5) of each of the licenses are also FSF Free? either YES or NO.
For example can I assume that FSF Free? YES for versions 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0
Creative Commons Attribution license
and then assume that FSF Free? NO for versions 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 of:
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
Marcus Lucero | Data Library Engineer | Palamida, Inc.
215 Second Street, 2nd Fl | San Francisco, CA 94105
Direct dial: 1.415.777.9400 x155
email: mlucero(a)palamida.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> | http://www.palamida.com<http://www.palamida.com/blog>