legal September 2015

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

11 participants
5 discussions

Henry Spencer's license
by Petr Šabata 06 Mar '23

06 Mar '23

Dear legal, While checking the contents of our `perl' package, I noticed the following: (...) /* NOTE: this is derived from Henry Spencer's regexp code, and should not * confused with the original package (see point 3 below). Thanks, Henry! */ /* Additional note: this code is very heavily munged from Henry's version * in places. In some spots I've traded clarity for efficiency, so don't * blame Henry for some of the lack of readability. */ /* The names of the functions have been changed from regcomp and * regexec to pregcomp and pregexec in order to avoid conflicts * with the POSIX routines of the same names. */ (...) * pregcomp and pregexec -- regsub and regerror are not used in perl * * Copyright (c) 1986 by University of Toronto. * Written by Henry Spencer. Not derived from licensed software. * * Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any * purpose on any computer system, and to redistribute it freely, * subject to the following restrictions: * * 1. The author is not responsible for the consequences of use of * this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise * from defects in it. * * 2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either * by explicit claim or by omission. * * 3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not * be misrepresented as being the original software. * **** Alterations to Henry's code are... **** **** Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, **** 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 **** by Larry Wall and others **** **** You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public **** License or the Artistic License, as specified in the README file. (...) You can see the whole file here: https://metacpan.org/source/SHAY/perl-5.20.1/regexec.c I looked but couldn't find any common name for this license of Henry's. Is it on our list? Is it free? What name should I use in the License tag? Thank you, Petr

5 9

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

LICENSE file for spec files
by Vladimir Rusinov 23 Sep '15

23 Sep '15

Hi, I working on a project <https://github.com/google/copr-sundry> where I'd like to distribute several Fedora spec files with some local modifications (which would not make sense in Fedora). Now, my organisation requires me to put all third-party code under third_party/ directory of the repo, along with readme file describing where it was taken from, list of local modifications and original LICENSE file. Ok, so I go to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#License_of_Fedor… where I can find that all Fedora spec files licensed under MIT. Since I'm not sure which MIT variant do you use, I go and read FPCA which says ""MIT License" means the license identified as "Modern Style withsublicense" at < https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense>." So I go to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense to find there things like "Copyright (c) 1998, 1999, 2000 Thai Open Source Software Center Ltd" and "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be includedin all copies or substantial portions of the Software." And I'm not sure if Thai Open Source Software Center actually has copyrights for Fedora spec files. So, which MIT license text should I use?

5 8

Adding Red Hat product installers to EPEL
by Florian Weimer 16 Sep '15

16 Sep '15

Can we add installation tools for Red Hat products to EPEL? The products are free software, but realistically, the tools are not usable without a Red Hat subscription. (This would be convenient for installation tools which themselves depend on EPEL packages.) -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security

6 8

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal September 2015