I'm currently trying to package some games for Fedora; since all of them come from one author, they share a lot of their dependencies. One of the dependencies if the "Perfect DOS VGA 437" font. While there's no licence explicitly stated, I wrote an e-mail to the author and he responded that "the font is free to use for any purpose. No crediting needed either. Feel free to use it."
However, there's a different issue I want to ask about. The 2003 blog post where the author describes the process behind creating the font says:
>So I fired up QuickBasic (!), created a quick program to display
>all 255 characters directly on screen, and captured the screen
>using Screen Thief, a classic DOS image grabbing software that
>accompanied me for ages (it was mainly created to capture game
>screens on DOS, but it did capture text screens on graphic format).
As such, I wonder - could this font be seen as infringing copyright, and thus, not suitable for inclusion in Fedora?
Full link to aforementioned blog post: http://zehfernando.com/2003/flash-ansi-viewer-and-reflections-on-flash-sp...
Thank you for your time,
It's me again with another question about a weird license wording on a
JpGraph's download page says:
"JpGraph is released under a dual license. QPL 1.0 (Qt Free License) For
non-commercial, open-source or educational use and JpGraph Professional
License for commercial use."
I don't know what "open-source use" means, but does that wording make
this licensing unacceptable for Fedora?
You may recall a thread I started earlier this year about c-pchart
and the strange license that led to a contradiction. I've filed an issue
with Ampache (a project that uses c-pchart) and they are willing to
switch to a different graphing library to help resolve this legal issue.
They are considering JpGraph as a replacement, and had asked if it would
be acceptable to Fedora.
I am not sure since it has the "non-commercial" and "commercial"
language in there. Does the "or" in the QPL satisfy our legal
requirements (since "open-source" was included in a list with "or"), or
does the language about "commercial use" supercede that? It does seem
pretty ambiguous to me.
I've got this request asking to add the EPL 2.0 license to Fedora. (and
maybe add a EPL-1.0 alias in addition to our EPL for the 1.0 one).
I am wondering how this hasn't come up yet.
SPDX also only has "EPL-1.0" atm.
From the original request:
As there is already a newer version of EPL - EPL 2.0, we should probably
update Fedora rules for abbreviation of such license (optionally also
include this new 2.0 version).
For particular versions see:
Thanks in advance.
I would like to distribute OpenSpades on COPR.
The license of the code itself is GPLv3. But it depends on content which I am not sure can be distributed on COPR.
I have attached a link to the license in question below.
Can I distribute the files in question on COPR?
I'm reviewing a new package to be included in Fedora repos. 
As always, I'm making confusion between GPLv2+ and GPLv3+... license in spec file is "GPLv3+ and MIT", but some sources are licensed GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ also. The COPYING file itself distributed in sources is a GPLv2 license.
What license is right to be write in spec file?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I maintain some package and it used to include some patented stuff
before. Now I sanitize tarball, but what's the deal with old versions?
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----