legal June 2012

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

6 participants
4 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

missing ec and ecparam commands in openssl package
by Valent Turkovic 19 Jul '12

19 Jul '12

Hi folks at Fedora legal team, please give us a comment regarding missing ec and ecparam commands in openssl package in this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=319901 Cheers, Valent.

4 5

NVidia tegra miniloader firmware license
by Yanko Kaneti 03 Jul '12

03 Jul '12

Hello, Is this redistributable enough (for say Fedora or Debian) ? http://nv-tegra.nvidia.com/gitweb/?p=tools/tegrarcm.git;a=blob;f=LICENSE;h=… Not the BSD part of the license but all the cruft about tegra20-miniloader.h and tegra30-miniloader.h Just curious. Yanko P.S. and srwarren might find your opinions useful.

2 1

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Packaging oVirt generated source
by juan.hernandez＠redhat.com 26 Jun '12

26 Jun '12

On 04/23/2012 06:18 PM, Yaniv Dary wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Juan Hernandez"<juan.hernandez(a)redhat.com> >> To: "Yaniv Dary"<ydary(a)redhat.com> >> Cc: "Tom Callaway"<tcallawa(a)redhat.com>, legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 7:01:22 PM >> Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Packaging oVirt generated source >> >> On 04/23/2012 05:20 PM, Tom Callaway wrote: >>> On 04/23/2012 10:50 AM, Juan Hernandez wrote: >>>> We would like to package for fedora the Data Ware House component >>>> of >>>> oVirt, which contains parts generated using Talend Open Studio >>>> (see [1]). >>>> >>>> This tool allows the user to define graphically some data flows >>>> and >>>> transformations and then generates Java code. The generated Java >>>> code >>>> states in the header that the license is LGPL and the tool itself >>>> claims >>>> to be open source using GPL v2 (see [2]). >>>> >>>> Is it acceptable from the legal point of view to create a Fedora >>>> package >>>> using the generated Java code as the source? >>> >>> Is _all_ code generated via Talend Open Studio automatically marked >>> as >>> being LGPL, or is this a decision that the use generating the Java >>> code >>> makes consciously? >> >> I think that all the code is marked LGPL, there is no other >> alternative. >> Yaniv, can you confirm this? > > This is correct. Tom, did you get this response from Yaniv Dary? Any comments?

3 3

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal June 2012