legal August 2017

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

6 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

about openssl we may enable and build all elliptic curves on corp ?
by Sérgio Basto 05 Nov '22

05 Nov '22

Hello, I reopen or start thinking again on this question of enable elliptic curves of openssl [1] So going directly to the point, may I built all source of openssl in copr [2] ? or at least some other curves that fedora package don't ship? [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405843 [2] Version: 1.0.2k %global fips_version 2.0.14 I mean sources: http://ftp.o penssl.org/source/openssl-%{version}.tar.gz and http://ftp.openssl.org/s ource/openssl-fips-%{fips_version}.tar.gz Thanks , -- Sérgio M. B.

4 6

Bison license exception
by Sandro Mani 01 Sep '17

01 Sep '17

Hi While reviewing mingw-cfitsio, we encountered the situation of bison parser sources [1][2] containing the following: /* [... standard GPLv3+ header ...] */ /* As a special exception, you may create a larger work that contains part or all of the Bison parser skeleton and distribute that work under terms of your choice, so long as that work isn't itself a parser generator using the skeleton or a modified version thereof as a parser skeleton. Alternatively, if you modify or redistribute the parser skeleton itself, you may (at your option) remove this special exception, which will cause the skeleton and the resulting Bison output files to be licensed under the GNU General Public License without this special exception. This special exception was added by the Free Software Foundation in version 2.2 of Bison. */ cfitsio is licensed MIT. Is my understanding correct that this special exception means that these files are also MIT licensed, being distributed as part of cfitsio, and hence that the license field of the package only needs to specify MIT? Thanks Sandro [1] https://github.com/healpy/cfitsio/blob/master/eval_y.c [2] https://github.com/healpy/cfitsio/blob/master/eval_tab.h

2 2

Doubts about GPLv3+ with added clause
by Juan Orti Alcaine 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

Hi, I'm reviewing a new package, mingw-cfitsio [1], and most of it is MIT licensed, but there are two files with the GPLv3+ license with an added exception as pasted below. We are not sure if this means that it is relicensed as MIT, or we should simply package it as "MIT and GPLv3+" Thanks. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374 /* A Bison parser, made by GNU Bison 2.4.1. */ /* Skeleton interface for Bison's Yacc-like parsers in C Copyright (C) 1984, 1989, 1990, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. */ /* As a special exception, you may create a larger work that contains part or all of the Bison parser skeleton and distribute that work under terms of your choice, so long as that work isn't itself a parser generator using the skeleton or a modified version thereof as a parser skeleton. Alternatively, if you modify or redistribute the parser skeleton itself, you may (at your option) remove this special exception, which will cause the skeleton and the resulting Bison output files to be licensed under the GNU General Public License without this special exception. This special exception was added by the Free Software Foundation in version 2.2 of Bison. */

1 0

Eclipse licences for fonts
by Peter Oliver 07 Aug '17

07 Aug '17

I'm considering packaging Airbus's B612 typeface (https://www.polarsys.org/projects/polarsys.b612) for Fedora. It's licenced under the Eclipse Public License v1.0 and Eclipse Distribution License v. 1.0. Neither of these licences are listed on the good licences for fonts list at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#Approved_font…, but both are on the good licences for software list at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses. Does this mean that these fonts can be acceptably included in Fedora? Thanks. -- Peter Oliver

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal August 2017