Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CAcert.org license
by Tom Callaway
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
7 years, 7 months
perl-FCGI licence
by Petr Šabata
No response so far.
Perhaps someone here could provide some insight?
Thanks in advance,
Petr
----- Forwarded message from Petr Šabata <contyk(a)redhat.com> -----
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:21:55 +0200
From: Petr Šabata <contyk(a)redhat.com>
To: emmanuel.seyman(a)club-internet.fr
Subject: FCGI licence
Hi Emmanuel,
I was just looking at our perl-FCGI package and noticed something
really weird in its source files, namely the following disclaimer
in os_unix.c and os_win32.c files:
This file contains proprietary and confidential
information and remains the unpublished property of
Open Market, Inc. Use, disclosure, or reproduction
is prohibited except as permitted by express written
license agreement with Open Market, Inc.
This is pretty ugly. Do we have such agreement?
I'd ask on the legal list directly but you might know something
more about this...
Thanks,
Petr
----- End forwarded message -----
11 years
IBPP License
by Michal Minář
Hello,
I'd like to package a wt toolkit [1], which bundles also IBPP [2]
library, that is
licensed under IBPP license. Could you please check, whether this is
acceptable
license for Fedora project?
--------------------------- LICENSE TEXT
----------------------------------------------
IBPP License v1.1
-----------------
(C) Copyright 2000-2006 T.I.P. Group S.A. and the IBPP Team (www.ibpp.org)
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization
("You") obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files
covered by this license (the "Software") to use the Software as part of
another
work; to modify it for that purpose; to publish or distribute it,
modified or
not, for that same purpose; to permit persons to whom the other work
using the
Software is furnished to do so; subject to the following conditions: the
above
copyright notice and this complete and unmodified permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software; You will not
misrepresent modified versions of the Software as being the original.
The Software is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind, express or
implied, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability,
fitness for a particular purpose and noninfringement. In no event shall
the authors or copyright holders be liable for any claim, damages or other
liability, whether in an action of contract, tort or otherwise, arising
from,
out of or in connection with the software or the use of other dealings in
the Software.
--------------------------- LICENSE TEXT END
-------------------------------------------
Thank you in advance.
Michal Minar
[1] http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt
[2] http://www.ibpp.org/
11 years, 1 month
"University of Michigan" license
by Ken Dreyer
Hello,
I'm packaging mod_waklog, which is under "The University of Michigan"
license - looks like yet another MIT variant.
What is the proper License: tag to use in my RPM?
- Ken
Copyright 2005 Regents of The University of Michigan
All Rights Reserved.
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and
that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
supporting documentation, and that the name of The University of
Michigan not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to
distribution of the software without specific, written prior
permission. This software is supplied as is without expressed or
implied warranties of any kind.
The University of Michigan
c/o UM Webmaster Team
4251 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785
11 years, 1 month
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] License question
by Tom Callaway
On 08/08/2012 08:22 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 12:43 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
>> On 08/07/2012 11:16 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 10:44 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
>>>> On 08/07/2012 07:38 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>>>> I don't recognize the text of this license in a piece of software I need
>>>>> to package as a dependency. The license listed on PyPi is "Freeware"
>>>>> which doesn't seem right (and isn't a valid option anyway) but the
>>>>> actual license text looks more permissive, except for the bit about "The
>>>>> Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." That clause looks like it
>>>>> might cause us some trouble...
>>>>>
>>>>> Can I get a legal opinion? (The complete sources of the utility are
>>>>> attached, including the license text in question).
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm also going to contact upstream to see if I can get a license
>>>>> clarification.
>>>>
>>>> As several other people have noted, this is the infamous jsmin license.
>>>> The upstream jsmin author takes a perverse pleasure in people ramming
>>>> headfirst into this nonsensical clause, and has repeatedly stated that
>>>> he will not remove it or reword it in such a way to resolve the issues
>>>> it causes.
>>>>
>>>> http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code has some of the
>>>> backstory.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, this is useful to hear. It was exactly the JSMin package I was
>>> trying to deal with. That's most unfortunate. I'll contact the Review
>>> Board upstream and let them know that their dependency on this package
>>> will get them into trouble.
>>
>> I believe that v8 has a re-implementation of jsmin from scratch to work
>> around this issue, it may be useful as a replacement.
>
>
>
> Following up on this further, I just discovered that the package
> python-webassets is bundling jsmin (complete with unacceptable license)
> in Fedora.
> See /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/webassets/filter/jsmin/jsmin.py in
> python-webassets-0.7-1.fc17.noarch
>
> I assume this is cause for alarm.
Yep. Please open a bug and block FE-Legal.
~tom
==
Fedora Project
11 years, 1 month
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] License question
by Tom Callaway
On 08/07/2012 11:16 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 10:44 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
>> On 08/07/2012 07:38 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> I don't recognize the text of this license in a piece of software I need
>>> to package as a dependency. The license listed on PyPi is "Freeware"
>>> which doesn't seem right (and isn't a valid option anyway) but the
>>> actual license text looks more permissive, except for the bit about "The
>>> Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." That clause looks like it
>>> might cause us some trouble...
>>>
>>> Can I get a legal opinion? (The complete sources of the utility are
>>> attached, including the license text in question).
>>>
>>> I'm also going to contact upstream to see if I can get a license
>>> clarification.
>>
>> As several other people have noted, this is the infamous jsmin license.
>> The upstream jsmin author takes a perverse pleasure in people ramming
>> headfirst into this nonsensical clause, and has repeatedly stated that
>> he will not remove it or reword it in such a way to resolve the issues
>> it causes.
>>
>> http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code has some of the
>> backstory.
>
>
> Thanks, this is useful to hear. It was exactly the JSMin package I was
> trying to deal with. That's most unfortunate. I'll contact the Review
> Board upstream and let them know that their dependency on this package
> will get them into trouble.
I believe that v8 has a re-implementation of jsmin from scratch to work
around this issue, it may be useful as a replacement.
~tom
==
Fedora Project
11 years, 1 month
License question
by Stephen Gallagher
I don't recognize the text of this license in a piece of software I need
to package as a dependency. The license listed on PyPi is "Freeware"
which doesn't seem right (and isn't a valid option anyway) but the
actual license text looks more permissive, except for the bit about "The
Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." That clause looks like it
might cause us some trouble...
Can I get a legal opinion? (The complete sources of the utility are
attached, including the license text in question).
I'm also going to contact upstream to see if I can get a license
clarification.
11 years, 1 month