legal February 2015

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

10 participants
8 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 13 Oct '15

13 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

19 Mar '15

Hi, 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 in https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gnome-design-team/gnome-mockups/master/sy… ) The design suggests that we should include a link to privacy policy of the OS vendor here. I've been pointed at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:PrivacyPolicy as the existing Fedora privacy policy, but that seems entirely focused on Fedora the 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 ? Matthias

11 27

About automated scratch-build
by Pierre-Yves Chibon 26 Feb '15

26 Feb '15

Hi, Earlier this week we pushed in production a system that automatically downloads new sources of projects packaged in Fedora, adjust the spec file in distgit to match the new version and runs a scratch build on koji. The system takes the new-release information from anitya [1], opens a ticket on bugzilla for package flagged for monitoring on pkgdb and report whether the scratch build was successful or not in that bugzilla ticket opened. Today, I was asked the question whether there could be some legal issue about automatically downloading new sources and running scratch builds with them. I guess this could be a problem if a project suddenly went closed source or started including non-free component(s). On the other hand, I do not see this any different from scratch build performed on packages before their review on bugzilla. To clear this, could I have legal's opinion on this question? Thanks, Pierre

3 2

Is this just MIT?
by Miro Hrončok 25 Feb '15

25 Feb '15

Hi, is this just MIT [1]? Or the last paragraph makes it different? [1] https://github.com/memononen/libtess2/blob/master/LICENSE.txt Thanks, -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

2 3

xdrawchem: free or non-free code?
by Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 10 Feb '15

10 Feb '15

Dear list, I'm trying to close off some old bugs and came across this one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019042 Could someone take a look and confirm that what I found is acceptable and the files in question (xdrawchem/boshcp.*) are free enough for Fedora? Regards, Dominik -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

1 0

CC-BY-SA version ?
by Remi Collet 03 Feb '15

03 Feb '15

Hi On https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing We have CC-BY-SA version 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Latest version is 4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Is this license valid ? Or just a small update to our wiki needed ? Remi.

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal February 2015