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. :)
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?
winetricks  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  and say that it
might be eligible for Fedora, so we'd like confirmation one way or the
we are working on improving the abrt integration in the Fedora
Workstation for F22. Part of this is adding a 'automatic bug reporting'
setting to the privacy panel in the control center (see the last mockup
the OS vendor here. I've been pointed at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:PrivacyPolicy as the existing
project, not on the OS itself. It also does not mention coredumps (and
the associated data we may collect) at all. Could you add a section
about that here, or should there be a separate page describing the
privacy expectations when using Fedora, the OS ?
Recently a package (apx) was found which bundled a font. A discussion
with the apx developers can be found at
The question is whether the apx developer's statement that he received
written permission to relicense the font as CC-BY is sufficient, or if
Fedora needs to get that proof somehow and include it as %license text.
I am reaching to solicit feedback on the items pointed out in:
- small icons resembling the company logos as per the file name
- GUI bitmap resembling that of StarCraft II
(discovered only thanks to an honest file name)
Also I am afraid there is no scalable way to discovery such cases, but
would be keen to know any hints. There may be similar cases present
in the existing Fedora packages (I actually pointed out the Firefox case
in the comment, but this may be somewhat exceptional), so having some
at least a bit capable (keyword based?) detector might benefit Fedora
I'd like to get CentOS to publish errata in updateinfo.xml just like RHEL does, but we hit a snag in the CentOS mailing lists in that we're not sure where we're allowed to legally get that data.
My current understanding is that it's illegal to
1. Scrape the webpage
2. Scrape updateinfo.xml from the Red Hat repository
But that it might be fine to get the data from the redhat-announce emails.
Can anybody confirm whether my understanding is correct?
Personally I optimistically think that Red Hat would be willing to just hand over updateinfo.xml to the CentOS project, especially since "Red Hat + CentOS" happened (http://community.redhat.com/centos-faq/), but the people on the CentOS list are not as optimistic.
If anybody can speak into this it would be very helpful, because if we can resolve the legal question and get errata in CentOS then I think it would benefit not only the CentOS project but the whole Red Hat family as well.
Hi Matthias and Florian,
I wasn't subscribed to the list so I can't reply directly to the thread.
The data contained in the automatic bug report (uReport) is described here:
It was designed with anonymity as a requirement and doesn't contain any user sensitive data, only a simple backtrace and some statistical info like OS version and related package versions.
We don't save IP addresses where the reports are coming from.
Reporting to Bugzilla may contain sensitive data (coredump), but is manual, for advanced users only and the user is required to do a review of the data.
If you need anything more or to clarify something, please don't hesitate to contact us.
I would like to clarify (and put in FAQ):
Can projects, which reside on Copr use rpmfusion (and generaly other restricted repos) if:
1) it is purely runtime dependency for those packages? (IMO yes, it is allowed).
2) it is used for runtime and buildtime and result is dynamicaly linked (not sure, but I would say allowed, but IANAL)
3) is is used for runtime and buildtime and result is sticaly linked (IMO not possible).
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys