legal March 2021

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

10 participants
9 discussions

Brainpool Curves in Fedora (openssl, libgcrypt, gnupg)
by Timothée Ravier 21 May '24

21 May '24

Hi everyone, The ECC Brainpool Curves [1][2] are currently not available in Fedora as according to this BZ [3], this needs Fedora Legal approval. Could someone from the legal team take a look to see if there are any blockers regarding Brainpool Curves inclusion in Fedora? Thanks! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic-curve_cryptography#Implementation [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5639 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413618

14 31

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

BSD like license with strange wording?
by Robert-André Mauchin 22 Mar '21

22 Mar '21

Hi, The following license is lifted from a code coming from NetBSD (ftp://ftp.NetBSD.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/sjg/ ) but I cannot find exactly the text of this license anywhere else: # This file is provided in the hope that it will # be of use. There is absolutely NO WARRANTY. # Permission to copy, redistribute or otherwise # use this file is hereby granted provided that # the above copyright notice and this notice are # left intact. Is this considered BSD-like? Best regards, Robert-André

4 5

Python license link update
by Miro Hrončok 17 Mar '21

17 Mar '21

Hello, would it be possible to update the link for the Python license listed at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main from https://docs.python.org/2/license.html to https://docs.python.org/license.html ? Thanks. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

2 2

Quick question about a BSD like license
by Robert-André Mauchin 09 Mar '21

09 Mar '21

Hello, The following license is BSD but with an extra clause regarding binary distribution, it should be okay I think but I just want confirmation it's not a problem: ================================================================================ FatFs License FatFs has being developped as a personal project of the author, ChaN. It is free from the code anyone else wrote at current release. Following code block shows a copy of the FatFs license document that heading the source files. /*----------------------------------------------------------------------------/ / FatFs - Generic FAT Filesystem Module Rx.xx / /-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/ / / Copyright (C) 20xx, ChaN, all right reserved. / / FatFs module is an open source software. Redistribution and use of FatFs in / source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided / that the following condition is met: / / 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, / this condition and the following disclaimer. / / This software is provided by the copyright holder and contributors "AS IS" / and any warranties related to this software are DISCLAIMED. / The copyright owner or contributors be NOT LIABLE for any damages caused / by use of this software. /----------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ Therefore FatFs license is one of the BSD-style licenses but there is a significant feature. FatFs is mainly intended for embedded systems. In order to extend the usability for commercial products, the redistributions of FatFs in binary form, such as embedded code, binary library and any forms without source code, does not need to include about FatFs in the documentations. This is equivalent to the 1-clause BSD license. Of course FatFs is compatible with the most of open source software licenses including GNU GPL. When you redistribute the FatFs source code with any changes or create a fork, the license can also be changed to GNU GPL, BSD-style license or any open source software license that not conflict with FatFs license. ================================================================================ Best regards, Robert-André

2 1

wdt package - Facebook SW patents granting
by Jaroslav Skarvada 08 Mar '21

08 Mar '21

Hi, there is Fedora review [1]. The package contains the PATENTS file [2] which for me seems like additional restrictions of the license (e.g. the text from the line 14). Is it OK to package it into Fedora? thanks & regards Jaroslav [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922315 [2] https://github.com/facebook/wdt/blob/master/PATENTS

2 1

Adding rnnoise to the repo
by Vascom 06 Mar '21

06 Mar '21

Hi all. I want to add rnnoise (Recurrent neural network for audio noise reduction) to Fedora repo. Upstream https://gitlab.xiph.org/xiph/rnnoise My Review Request https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919606 I have some doubts about patents in this program. But one of the authors answered me by email. See forwarded message below. So сan I get permission from the Legal Team to add this package? ---------- Forwarded message --------- От: Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin(a)jmvalin.ca> Date: сб, 6 мар. 2021 г. в 09:59 Subject: RNNoise in Fedora To: <vascom2(a)gmail.com> Hi Vasiliy, I saw you were inquiring about the legal status of RNNoise. I don't like making public comments involving patents, but I can say that I do not have knowledge of any patent that would cover the RNNoise code. Also, that code was written while I was employed by Mozilla (I am no longer with them) and we did not file any patent on it. So I hope this helps. Jean-Marc

1 0

Unicode Terms of Use?
by Miro Hrončok 02 Mar '21

02 Mar '21

Hello, I've attached a license file that licensecheck classifies as "Unicode Terms of Use". It is not explicitly listed at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main and it is not the same license as https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Unicode Can this be included in a Fedora package? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal March 2021