legal December 2014

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

4 participants
6 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

reg. fedora name as trademark
by Sindhu S 14 Oct '15

14 Oct '15

hi I noticed there is a website called usefedora.com that sells a product to make online schools. Is this a violation of any trademark that redhat might hold with regards to the Fedora name? Thanks! -- -Sindhu

4 3

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

Software with no license rubygem-sshkeyauth
by Steve Traylen 03 Dec '14

03 Dec '14

What's the story for software with no license. Is there anyway to package rubygem-sshkeyauth for Fedora. In particular https://github.com/jordansissel/ruby-sshkeyauth has an open request now for one year to add a license. https://github.com/jordansissel/ruby-sshkeyauth/issues/3 Steve.

2 1

Transitive Grace Period Public LIcense ("TGGPL") v. 1.0
by Eric Smith 03 Dec '14

03 Dec '14

Is this license, used by Tahoe-LAFS, acceptable for Fedora (and EPEL)? https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/trunk/COPYING.TGPPL.rst?rev=… As you can see, the file starts with a list of exception clauses granting additional permissions, similar to some of the common GPL+exceptions licenses. The license body looks OK to my non-expert eyes; the main differences seem to be that the copyleft requirements are allowed under some circumstances to be delayed for up to a year (section 1c), and the external deployment provisions (section 5), which I think are similar to the AGPL. If there are any issues with the license preventing it from being packaged for Fedora, I think the author may be amenable to working them out. Thanks, Eric

2 3

Apache license text in ruby gems
by František Dvořák 01 Dec '14

01 Dec '14

Hello, I'm packaging a ruby gem under Apache 2.0 license, and I asked upstream to include license text file, pointing to LicensingGuidelines at [1]. Upstream developer has a questions, I don't know how to answer [2]: "Do you require the license text only in the git repository as a LICENSE.txt file or also as part of the gem bundle? I assume I don't need the full Apache 2.0 license, but simply the extract that can be found at the bottom of this project's README. Is that correct?" Is the brief "extract" at end of the [3] enough for gems (and I can include full text in the Fedora package)? In many projects the gem archive use to contain only the ruby files, to be as small as possible. Thank you, František [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/L… [2] https://github.com/trevorrowe/jmespath.rb/issues/3 [3] https://github.com/trevorrowe/jmespath.rb

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal December 2014