legal July 2026

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

6 participants
3 discussions

foo2zjs printer driver: download of HP printer firmware
by ValdikSS 29 Jul '26

29 Jul '26

Hi list, foo2zjs open-source printer driver provides support for many old (2004-2012 era) printers, including selected HP LaserJet models. These printers require the firmware which needs to be uploaded to the printer on every power on. Firmware files are not bundled in foo2zjs. The upstream includes the script called `getweb` which downloads the firmware files from third-party websites and unpacks them. `getweb` is not packaged in Fedora's foo2zjs, which makes HP LaserJets unable to print. Other source of the firmware files are proprietary hp-plugin packages which are downloaded by `hplip` package. I've changed the script (`getweb-hpplugin`) to download hp-plugin bundles and use files from there. hp-plugin downloads is packaged in Fedora's hplip package. The questions are: - Can Fedora include `getweb`, which downloads the firmware files from elsewhere? - If not, can Fedora include `getweb-hpplugin`, which downloads HP plugin files from official openprinting website and extracts firmware from these, as does HP's hplip? - If none could be done, what else could and should be done? Here's the license.txt found inside hp-plugin: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/ValdikSS/ba01bda36f73e85858fd9899773f18c… Package: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/foo2zjs/foo2zjs/ Discussion with xvitaly about this issue: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/foo2zjs/pull-request/2#comment-327537

3 6

What to do when upstream has "All rights reserved"?
by Cristian Le 28 Jul '26

28 Jul '26

I just got hit by another project that is over-eager to add the "All rights reserved" snippet on a FOSS license. I have opened an issue with upstream [1], but I guess we do not actually have a documented guidance or reference to point upstream to? The big thing that spurred me into opening the issues is that that snippet is included in the BSD-3-Clause license text itself, which seems very at odds with the text of the license. What is even more concerning is that when I put it into an spdx license check [2] it says it is a "perfect match" for BSD-3-Clause [1]: https://github.com/hfp/libxs/issues/24 [2]: https://tools.spdx.org/app/check_license/

4 4

License text files in packages
by Mattia Verga 26 Jul '26

26 Jul '26

This is perhaps a silly question... am I right when I say that license text files distributed in packages should reflect just the code used in the final binary (like the License: tag)? My question comes from a ticket [1] I raised against Rawtherapee upstream. As I recently noticed, in the upcoming next version Rawtherapee started to install license files for several things: code used in the project, code optionally used in the final output (such as bundled libraries that we don't use in Fedora as we use system's libraries), but also external libraries which Rawtherapee links to and doesn't bundle at all (I see, for example, gtkmm license text file). If upstream doesn't fix that before the final 5.13 release, I plan to manually remove license that doesn't pertain to Fedora distributed binaries. Is that right? Thanks, Mattia [1] https://github.com/RawTherapee/RawTherapee/issues/7718

2 3

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal July 2026