legal September 2012

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

4 participants
5 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

Request for Clarification: License of unit test framework
by Rich Mattes 27 Sep '12

27 Sep '12

Hi, I've got a BSD-licensed library up for review[1]. All of the code for the library falls under the BSD license, but the package bundles an LGPLv3-licensed unit test framework [2]. The unit test framework is built and used in %check, but does not end up in the resulting binary RPM. My question is, do I need to include LGPLv3 in the package's license? Or, should I rm the LGPL source during %prep and exclude %check? The guidelines tend to indicate I don't[3] need to include LGPLv3 in the license field, but this particular case isn't treated in the multiple licensing situations[4]. Thanks, Rich [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817193 [2] http://cu.danfis.cz [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#Does_the_Lice… [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#Multiple_lice…

2 1

Java3D license anti-nuclear clause
by Eric Smith 17 Sep '12

17 Sep '12

Re: Java3D package review, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832853 If upstream removed the word license from the clause, such that it read: You acknowledge that this software is not designed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility. Would that be acceptable for inclusion in Fedora? Sun made that change for JavaCC, so it seems possible that Oracle might be willing to do that for Java3D, if they're not willing to drop the clause entirely. Thanks, Eric

2 1

Khronos Group OpenGL man documentation
by Yanko Kaneti 06 Sep '12

06 Sep '12

Hello, Do you think public documentation sources from the Khronos group http://www.opengl.org/wiki/Getting_started/XML_Toolchain_and_Man_Pages need more vetting by legal? There is this "helpful" blurb about the licensing: "There are a variety of licenses from SGI, 3Dlabs, Sams Publishing, and the Khronos Group applied to different parts of the man pages. We think they all boil down to "BSD style" licenses that should allow you to modify and redistribute the man pages. However, this is not an official legal opinion or committment from Khronos. You must make your own judgements based on reading the licenses involved." We've shipped gl-manpages (an old(2006) prebuild version of these man pages) with mesa subpackages for a while (now a separate package in f18 and rawhide), but I'd like to move to building from the khronos source. This potentially would include the OpenGL 4.x, 3.x and GLSL man pages which I we've not distributed till now. Regards Yanko

2 1

perl-FCGI licence
by Petr Šabata 05 Sep '12

05 Sep '12

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 -----

3 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal September 2012