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. :)
I have some concerns about the Clementine music player application as
packaged in Fedora. The concerns involve the Spotify integration feature.
The application uses Spotify's trademarks and their copyrighted logo and
suggests that the user pull in a proprietary application called "Spotify
Core" to use the feature. This effectively makes the feature a stub that
pulls in proprietary software.
I'm wondering if any of this is in violation of any Fedora packaging
guidelines for the issues I've raised.
As you may or may not know, we have been working on a new GNOME
application, Boxes that (among other things) enables users to easily
manage virtuat-machines. This also includes ability to detect
operating-systems given an installation media and presenting an
intuitive and impressive UI to user to easily install different
operating systems with minimum or no interaction. Boxes makes use of a
new library, libosinfo that provides information about operating
systems (which it internally keeps in an XML database).
The reason I'm writing to you is that we really want (more like need) to
show logos of different operating systems to the user. In attempt to
avoid violating possible trademark issues, here is the approach I took
in my (currently unaccepted) patches:
1. libosinfo only provides (HTTP) URLs to logos of particular OS/product
but not the logo itself in any form.
2. Boxes downloads the logo at runtime when needed (when user inserts
installation media of the OS in question or has installer ISO image in
her/his home directory), caches it on disk and presents it to the user
as shown in the screenshot.
So I would very much appreciate it if you can provide answers to the
1. Is Boxes (or libosinfo) in this case is violating any trademarks
already (assuming only the logos shown in the screenshot)?
2. If the answer to the question#1 is 'no', is there a good chance we
violate trademarks of OS products in future? If so, is that avoidable?
3. If the answer to the question#1 is 'yes', could you please advice us
how to implement this essential feature without violating any
xDebug have been relicensed (don't know exactly when, it seems we have
missed that) under "The Xdebug License, version 1.01"
This seems to be a "BSD style"
(and referenced as on http://pecl.php.net/package/xdebug/2.2.0RC1)
The License also says "Based on "The PHP License", version 3.0"
I think this license is OpenSource (and BSD like)
Can you please confirm, and add it to the "good license list", which
seems required to update this package (else we'll have to remove
php-pecl-xdebug from the repository)
Here is the full LICENSE text
Thanks in advance,
The following describes the policy for information controlled by the
privacy flag in FAS.
It appears to me that the IRC nickname if provided in FAS is also
treated as public information in various places now regardless of the
privacy settings. If I log into FAS and look at another user who has
the privacy flag set I can see the IRC nickname, if I query the fas
plugin to zodbot I also see the user's IRC nickname.
I do think the IRC nickname should be considered public information if
provided (and especially for users with fedora cloaks) so I'm
exception along with the email address listed in the current policy?
I also have a question about what the "your affiliations" in the last
bullet in that section refers to?
I came accross the attached header in the source files for a package I
am working on. What is the correct license tag for that? I guess that it
should be "CDDL or GPLv2 or ASL 2.0". Is that correct?
Thanks in advance,
I'd like to sell my e-book done in ePub format, so this means I will
distribuite the font into the e-book it self. You can simple unzip an
ePub file and recoved text, cover image and fonts, so, in this case,
Liberation Serif fonts.
I read the license here:
but I didn't understand exactly If I can use the Liberation fonts into
the ePub file and I can sell my ePub e-book. If I need a special
request to Red Hat or not. I wrote them and they told me to ask here
so I did.
Is enough to specify in the copyright e-book page that I used
Liberation fonts freely donwloadable from
https://fedorahosted.org/liberation-fonts/ or it's not needed because
information are into the file itself?
If I do (on my Linux system):
otfinfo -i /usr/share/fonts/TTF/LiberationSerif-Regular.ttf
Family: Liberation Serif
Full name: Liberation Serif
PostScript name: LiberationSerif
Version: Version 1.07.1
Unique ID: Ascender - Liberation Serif
Designer: Steve Matteson
Designer URL: http://www.ascendercorp.com/typedesigners.html
Manufacturer: Ascender Corporation
Vendor URL: http://www.ascendercorp.com/
Trademark: Liberation is a trademark of Red Hat, Inc.
registered in U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office and certain other jurisdictions.
Copyright: Copyright (c) 2007 Red Hat, Inc. All rights
reserved. LIBERATION is
a trademark of Red Hat, Inc.
License Description: Licensed under the Liberation Fonts license, see
Vendor ID: 1ASC
I get all information I need on the font from the font file it self.
If you need more specific information let me know.
Have a nice day,