legal January 2018

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

13 participants
8 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

Last U.S. MPEG-2 Patent Expires on Feb. 13th!
by Sérgio Basto 19 Feb '18

19 Feb '18

someone asked in ask site [1] Can Fedora consider allowing the package "libmpeg2" into the Fedora family for the next release? Best regards, [1] https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en/question/116927/last-us-mpeg-2-patent- expires-on-feb-13th/ -- Sérgio M. B.

4 6

Batch icon set license
by Samuel Rakitničan 17 Jan '18

17 Jan '18

Dear list, Can you help me identify license used by Batch icon set. --- USAGE LICENSE: You are free to use Batch (the "icon set") or any part thereof (the "icons") in any personal, open-source or commercial work without obligation of payment (monetary or otherwise) or attribution. Do not sell the icon set, host the icon set or rent the icon set (either in existing or modified form). While attribution is optional, it is always appreciated. Intellectual property rights are not transferred with the download of the icons. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL ADAM WHITCROFT BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE ICONS, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. --- http://adamwhitcroft.com/batch/ Thank you in advance, Samuel Rakitničan

6 9

twolame could we move it to Fedora ?
by Sérgio Basto 12 Jan '18

12 Jan '18

Hi, After move mp3 related packages to Fedora proper, we still have twolame and kwave to move or to review . I want focus on twolame [1] as state in [2] twolame is a MP2 (not MP3) encoder , is now eligible for a Fedora package or not ? Thanks, [1] http://twolame.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1_Audio_Layer_II [2] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4754#c1 -- Sérgio M. B.

4 5

libdvdcss package in COPR
by Michal Novotny 10 Jan '18

10 Jan '18

Hello, is it alright to host libdvdcss package in COPR or should it be deleted? (more info here: https://www.videolan.org/legal.html) The licence is ok (GPL) and it's not listed here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items But I am not sure if it goes well with US regulations. See COPR specific regulations here: https://docs.pagure.org/copr.copr/user_documentation.html#what-i-can-build-… Thank you Michal Novotny

5 5

Is legal mention packages that aren't in Fedora repos ?
by Sérgio Basto 03 Jan '18

03 Jan '18

Hi, Before commit it and push, I'd like have clearance, that is not breaking any legal police of Fedora . We have mlt in Fedora repos and mlt-freeworld but it is complex debug it, so I'd like have one rpm spec file with some conditional macros and where is possible build the complete package and but just build the legal part on Fedora [1] , do you see any legal problem ? Thanks and happy new year ! [1] diff --git a/mlt.spec b/mlt.spec index 9562287..e077bca 100644 --- a/mlt.spec +++ b/mlt.spec @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ %bcond_without ruby %bcond_without php +%bcond_with freeworld #globals for https://github.com/mltframework/mlt/commit/ea973eb65c8ca7 9a859028a9e008360836ca4941 @@ -48,6 +49,11 @@ BuildRequires: pulseaudio-libs-devel BuildRequires: alsa-lib-devel BuildRequires: movit-devel BuildRequires: vid.stab-devel +%if %{with freeworld} +BuildRequires: ffmpeg-devel +BuildRequires: libquicktime-devel +BuildRequires: xine-lib-devel +%endif %if %{with ruby} BuildRequires: ruby-devel ruby -- Sérgio M. B.

4 4

Ocaml documentation license
by Florian Weimer 03 Jan '18

03 Jan '18

Should Fedora distribute content under the Ocaml documentation license? The license says: “ The present documentation is copyright © 2013 Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA). The OCaml documentation and user’s manual may be reproduced and distributed in whole or in part, subject to the following conditions: • The copyright notice above and this permission notice must be preserved complete on all complete or partial copies. • Any translation or derivative work of the OCaml documentation and user’s manual must be approved by the authors in writing before distribution. • If you distribute the OCaml documentation and user’s manual in part, instructions for obtaining the complete version of this manual must be included, and a means for obtaining a complete version provided. • Small portions may be reproduced as illustrations for reviews or quotes in other works without this permission notice if proper citation is given. ” For program source code, this would clearly not be allowed because derivative works are not permitted. Are such restrictions permitted for documentation licenses in Fedora? Thanks, Florian

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal January 2018