legal March 2014

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

19 participants
13 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

Linking of GPL-only and GPL-incompatible libraries
by Florian Weimer 25 Aug '14

25 Aug '14

What's Fedora's stance on linking GPL-only libraries into the same process as a library which is considered GPL-incompatible (such as 4-clause BSD) if this linking happens rather indirectly? We currently link psql against both libreadline and libcrypto/libssl (OpenSSL), so if that is okay, more indirect linking should be acceptable as well. However, I'm not sure I'd appreciate that if I were a GPL-only library author who chose that license deliberately (perhaps even with a desire to sell alternative licensing), and some intermediate libraries makes my work available under a more permissive license, only wrapped in a different programming interface. -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team

3 12

Modified version of ASL 2.0
by Parag Nemade 30 Jun '14

30 Jun '14

Hi, I want to know if this http://code.google.com/p/impacket/source/browse/trunk/LICENSE is a valid license which is modified version of ASL 2.0 license. Regards, Parag.

4 5

Source Requirements
by Dennis Gilmore 12 May '14

12 May '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, A couple of questions. 1) can we please stop making source isos? the source is available in the source tree. 2) cloud WG wants to be able to produce updates images, what are our requirements to ensuring source compliance with the GPL? Today the sources for livecds and appliance images are only in the source tree and not separated out. if we do updates images some sources will be in the base source tree and some in updates, however the updates sources will go away if the package gets another update. the only single source where we could point people at is koji. Dennis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJS+hz3AAoJEH7ltONmPFDR1icQAKhOvFziBsnYpi+wSYTGZUAH ++P1NeCQ4DKDz046kHJ5bGqw+IPNykwOP9RFKTx2v1ajAcMdvxWhR55+QextwHhn b7lXE84mn+AM2uU64l+dVFireCi+Lh5XAVBO0aHGM5/olw/8DDuoVn+17O6ooaVr mEQ/mGfjUDE+YDIIEcPjJ9HxkvQu3QDedayqThGfRZO4W8nLCBcAtCLm0kLC5Kv7 aVbRghC4wEKLU/PY7HzmlXla6GJfwZ024fE6qrZ6tyN6Rhn1x6xtT4WbU6GUDLKu qZjUDX/p689VnH1PT+W9B0Oy9Z8TkfrtouxfoLVtzEThv3APE2K33H7MyrHS8ORy ii1XHttX2bSmt92Wuj8ceY92oZk00wfTwJ4dUQj4ZQYQbyGAW31uymtiPwTUNTcw 3tgaSCeaI7w1W+dsyKcRVQyiau2WUojGhXdTf2r9dTuAuIGIJogg7iyhCDc45O3m 0u7snSxpYZ/jgpODC45sO/JvevYSD4vzCwFA4vW14jDKobCvLCiPt7atSI/uivwt qO6TiiapgBCtkjYO98Pcqhu5x0xx7jS86iOi+D02hZGWx+7twsOaj6DyaZYuZyaf sbonFLT0zejhcYgE+CAv+zPPeAKmapFZK7Gj3Kb3MWbxpwrWsyrTiy8MgFyp9wDl 9yFR9Bdcrpr+DhhF5KcR =jifW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 7

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Copyright Submission Proposal
by Robyn Bergeron 26 Mar '14

26 Mar '14

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joe Brockmeier" <jzb(a)redhat.com> > To: "marketing >> Fedora Marketing team" <marketing(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:42:03 AM > Subject: Copyright Submission Proposal > > Hey all, > > To streamline this whole thing, can we just agree to publish all content > on the magazine (and ask authors to agree) on a single Creative Commons > license? #1: Doesn't the FPCA provide for this anyway, in the absence of some standardized agreement? It seems like a lot of overhead in terms of keeping track of who has agreed to publish under those terms. It's either a new FAS group where people have agreed to a license, or revalidating existing fas groups, or... just checking as we already do to make sure people have signed the FPCA. (I assume that Magazine is hooked up to FAS in some fashion.) > > I would *personally* prefer the most restrictive of the CC licenses (CC > BY-NC-ND 4.0): > > https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ #2: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is listed in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing as a license that isn't acceptable for Fedora. I realize you're citing 4.0 here, and we don't have guidance on 4.0 in the wiki, but I have to imagine it's not going to be much of a change. The NC part is still NC... as you said, it's the most restrictive, and at least in my opinion, restrictiveness isn't exactly freedom-enabling :) Copied the legal list for love and guidance. -Robyn > > But I'd accept most of the CC licenses. > > Thoughts, comments, flames? > > Best, > > jzb > -- > Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst > jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ > Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/ > -- > marketing mailing list > marketing(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing

5 9

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Copyright Submission Proposal
by Robyn Bergeron 26 Mar '14

26 Mar '14

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthew Miller" <mattdm(a)mattdm.org> > To: "Ruth Suehle" <rsuehle(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "Richard Fontana" <rfontana(a)redhat.com>, "Fedora Marketing team" <marketing(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>, > legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 11:32:03 AM > Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Copyright Submission Proposal > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 02:29:39PM -0400, Ruth Suehle wrote: > > "Copyright Fedora Magazine," which obviously needed to be fixed. But if > > osdc has switched up to CC 4, maybe we should revisit for FM as well? > > I think it's worth at least looking at updating for Fedora content in > general. Agreed. TBH, I think if we're going to go that route, it should be in the context of the FPCA and our current list of "good licenses", and not just for the Magazine - trying to maintain separate lists of folks who have agreed to contribute under a license aside from signing the FPCA just feels like a lot of work for caring for special snowflakes, esp. when we don't have a mechanism currently in place to do so. -r > > -- > Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/> > -- > marketing mailing list > marketing(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing

1 0

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Copyright Submission Proposal
by Robyn Bergeron 26 Mar '14

26 Mar '14

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joe Brockmeier" <jzb(a)redhat.com> > To: "Robyn Bergeron" <rbergero(a)redhat.com>, "Fedora Marketing team" <marketing(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> > Cc: legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 11:01:01 AM > Subject: Re: Copyright Submission Proposal > > On 03/26/2014 12:55 PM, Robyn Bergeron wrote: > > #2: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is listed in > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing as a license that isn't > > acceptable for Fedora. I realize you're citing 4.0 here, and we don't > > have guidance on 4.0 in the wiki, but I have to imagine it's not going > > to be much of a change. The NC part is still NC... as you said, it's the > > most restrictive, and at least in my opinion, restrictiveness isn't > > exactly freedom-enabling :) > > Yeah, my bad. > > I have my reasons for preferring the NC, myself, but as I said - I'll go > along with whatever the project/group prefer. > > My main point is we should have one CC license content is published > under, and authors should know and agree to that when they put stuff on > the magazine. > > As for the magazine being hooked up to FAS - have we been checking that > all submissions come from people who've signed the FPCA? It's not > automated. I guess the question I'm asking (to be more clear): If I get access to publish something to the Magazine, how is that access granted? Am I added to a FAS group, which in turn provides permissions for access? Or is the addition to the magazine author/editor list done manually? > > Best, > > jzb > -- > Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst > jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ > Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/ >

1 0

Spread Open-Source License
by Terry Moschou 17 Mar '14

17 Mar '14

Hello Are you able to approve the Spread Open-Source License http://www.spread.org/license/license.html and subsequently update the Good (or Bad) Licenses Table at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Software_License_List Cheers Terry

3 3

Is such restriction acceptable
by Remi Collet 17 Mar '14

17 Mar '14

Hi, Reviewing an old package [1] , I notice the LICENSE text (BSD-3) from the headers [2] includes: This code cannot simply be copied and put under the GNU Public License or any other GPL-like (LGPL, GPL2) License. Is it acceptable ? If not... will have to drop this package from fedora... Remi [1] https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/php-pecl-radius [2] https://github.com/LawnGnome/php-radius/blob/master/radius.c

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal March 2014