legal August 2013

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

9 participants
9 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

winetricks
by T.C. Hollingsworth 01 Aug '15

01 Aug '15

winetricks [1] is free software, but I was originally under the impression that it was ineligible for inclusion in Fedora because it is used primarily to download and install non-free software. (That is not it's only function, though--it also does some registry hacks and can manage multiple WINEPREFIXes.) However, some members of the community disagree [2] and say that it might be eligible for Fedora, so we'd like confirmation one way or the other. Thanks! -T.C. [1] http://winetricks.org/ [2] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992#c40

5 7

Question about the Supplemental Wallpaper Submission Guidelines
by Ryan Lerch 04 Sep '13

04 Sep '13

The guidelines[1] for the supplemental wallpaper submissions state that you need permission from the author to submit the file. Does anyone know the reasoning for this? Does it also apply to images that are in the Public Domain? I ask because there are many many awesome images in places like the NASA image library that are public domain. These would be nice to source and include in the submissions. Do I need to contact NASA to see if their public domain images are okay for use as a Fedora wallpaper? Same question if i source an image that is already licensed CC-BY-SA. Do i need to contact the artist directly? or does the their choice of licence imply permission for use (and consequently for me to submit). cheers, ryanlerch [1] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F20_Artwork/Submissions/Supplemental_Wallpap…

2 1

xephem license
by Christopher Meng 28 Aug '13

28 Aug '13

HI lawyers, I'm packaging xephem, but they don't use a standard license but this: http://www.clearskyinstitute.com/xephem/xephem.html Can you help me and tell me if it's free or not? Thanks. Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng Always playing in Fedora Project http://cicku.me

2 1

MIT variant in perl-Data-UUID?
by Mathieu Bridon 22 Aug '13

22 Aug '13

Hi, I'm reviewing perl-Data-UUID [1], and the source is declared as being BSD: http://search.cpan.org/~rjbs/Data-UUID-1.219/ However, it also contains this file: http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/RJBS/Data-UUID-1.219/LICENSE This looks to me like a variant of the old-style MIT (no advertising without permission), the second one on this page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT Am I correct? If so, should the License tag for the package be "BSD and MIT" ? Thanks, [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998143 -- Mathieu

2 1

License clarification for perl-Encode
by Jitka Plesníková 21 Aug '13

21 Aug '13

Hi, I am updating perl-Encode. The following license was added into several files. Is it UCD license? # Copyright (c) 1991-2011 Unicode, Inc. All Rights reserved. # # This file is provided as-is by Unicode, Inc. (The Unicode Consortium). No # claims are made as to fitness for any particular purpose. No warranties of # any kind are expressed or implied. The recipient agrees to determine # applicability of information provided. If this file has been provided on # magnetic media by Unicode, Inc., the sole remedy for any claim will be # exchange of defective media within 90 days of receipt. # # Unicode, Inc. hereby grants the right to freely use the information # supplied in this file in the creation of products supporting the # Unicode Standard, and to make copies of this file in any form for # internal or external distribution as long as this notice remains # attached. The files with the license are part of source rpm, but they are not included in binary rpm. Should be the license mention in License: tag in this case? Thank you, Jitka Plesnikova

2 1

Possible CC BY violation
by Miro Hrončok 20 Aug '13

20 Aug '13

Hi, Few months ago, I've taken this picture [0] and attended with it in the contest of F19 Supplemental Wallpapers [1]. I've released that image under the terms of CC BY 3.0 license [2] (clearly stated at [1]). When F19 was released and I saw the DVDs, I saw my picture at the back side of the DVD cover. Without any attribution. I said to myself, let it be. Later on, I saw my picture on Flock badges. Without attribution. It's also on (the mockup of ?) Fedora Magazine front page [3], again, I see no attribution. Just to be clear, I'm not mad or something like that, I'm just curious. In my eyes, Fedora was always very strict about licenses and stuff like that. If anyone would come to me and say "Hey, Miro, we want to use that image in XYZ, but your attribution would make it look weird, can we use it to promote Fedora, without your attribution?" I would definitely say yes. But nobody had done this before the image was used. So I would like to know: Signing CLA, did I abandoned my right to use license with attribution? Or someone screwed it? Thanks, Miro [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/File:Fedora-printed-thumb.jpg [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F19_Artwork/Submissions/Supplemental_Wallpap… [2] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ [3] http://fedoramagazine.org/

2 2

python-backports: 2 lines of code (RHBZ 998047)
by Ian Weller 17 Aug '13

17 Aug '13

Hi all, I've blocked FE-Legal on my review request for python-backports: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998047 It's a namespace package in Python that we're pulling the code out of from python-backports-ssl_match_hostname. The two lines of code are: from pkgutil import extend_path __path__ = extend_path(__path__, __name__) As far as I can tell, the code is derived from PEP 382 [1], which is public domain. Can somebody double check that Public Domain is the correct license for this package? [1]: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0382/ -- Ian Weller <ian(a)ianweller.org>

1 0

Font license question
by Christopher Meng 14 Aug '13

14 Aug '13

Hi, Because Linux world has a lack of CJK fonts, a famous company in China has released 4 free fonts for people for a long time. Unfortunately, I'm not a lawyer, and these fonts are not licensed under OFL or other licenses, so I inquired an English license file and pasted it to: http://goo.gl/qKadwa I hope some guys can help me. Thanks. Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng Always playing in Fedora Project http://cicku.me

2 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal August 2013