Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora not free enough for GNU?
Michel Salim wrote: I was just over at gnu.org to download the anniversary video recorded by Stephen Fry, and while I was there decided to take a look at what systems they recommend as being free. They list BLAG, which is based on Fedora. But Fedora itself (and Debian) is not there! http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions This struck me as rather strange, especially considering their guidelines are actually based on Fedora's (and we are thanked for it): http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html As far as I remember, Rahul Sundaram was talking to the GNU / FSF people about this quite a while back. Is it just the difference over binary-only firmware that's consigning us to the non-free heap? Basically, yes. I posted the last status on http://lwn.net/Articles/282771/ David Woodhouse initiated a effort to remove firmware into a separate archive. While that work is still in progress, you can see that kernel-firmware is a separate package in rawhide already. While there are other advantages, it allows people who don't want such firmware packages installed for philosophical reasons to easily remove them. A separate spin is easier now as well. Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] Re: About breaking GPL license and copyrights on Fedora Core.
Giulio Fidente wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rahul Sundaram wrote: Jon Stanley wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Rahul Sundaram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no need to translate. Refer http://www.linux-xp.com/. I haven't looked for source code. Interesting. I tried the Buy Now and Download Now links on the English version of the site and got nowhere. I do notice mention that I have to register in order to use the product beyond a 30-day evaluation period. I *think* that this may be an issue under GPLv3 section 6, if there is any GPLv3 software in the distro, which cannot obviously be determined without a copy of it. This is a Russian organization. I doubt we want to waste money trying to get a hold of this product to hunt down whether the restrictions on the end product is evasive of any specific license within. Wikipedia article states that they do not respond to email. It doesn't appear to have made any new releases and seems to be dead. btw it is availabe for download at: ftp://downloads.linux-xp.com/pub/linux-xp/desktop/2008/international/LXPD-2008-I-INTERNATIONAL-862-i386-DVD.iso and or ftp://downloads.linux-xp.com/pub/linux-xp/desktop/2008/international/LXPD-2008-I-INTERNATIONAL-862-i386-DVD.iso.torrent CC'ing fedora-legal list. Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: About breaking GPL license and copyrights on Fedora Core.
Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:49:07PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Tom spot Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks like they're distributing some source code. Are there specific areas of concern? According to the website, the software requires activation and payment to use it beyond 30 days. My main concern was that this *may* run afoul of section 6 of GPLv3 if there's any GPLv3 licensed software in there, but IANAL and that language is sort of murky to me. And why is that Fedora's concern? That would be linux-xp's violation, no? If a derivative distribution is violating the licenses collectively, it is also misusing the work done within Fedora. That should make it our concern as well, I would think. Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Concerns over SIF OFL
Richard Fontana wrote: On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:30:52 +0530 Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Bruce Perens comments on some loopholes with OFL that allows anyone to use fonts licensed under them as public domain equivalent. Since Fedora has been recommending it over all other font licenses, maybe Red Hat legal should look into it http://lwn.net/Articles/319537/ We've already looked at this. I do not agree with Bruce's reading of the license. FWIW I think Fedora is correct in recommending the OFL. It is not perfect, but I am unaware of any existing free license for fonts that is better. Ok, great. Thank you. Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Speech recognition
Kevin Kofler wrote: Rahul Sundaram wrote: No. They are not firmware and cannot be considered as one. They are not firmware, but are they content? Non-code content, e.g. game data, is allowed under the same rules as firmware. On the other hand, this does not apply for things like fonts or documentation. I am not sure, any games are carrying non modifiable content. Which ones are talking about? Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] Fedora guidelines on patents
Hi Looks like we are getting a lot of discussions on patents in fedora-devel list now. Perhaps the section on patents can explicitly mention our stand point on patents a bit more clearer? I am thinking of something like the following within the guidelines or in a separate page references by the guidelines: --- Any patent system that allows patents over software (Not just US but other countries around the world) is flawed and it is almost impossible to develop any complex software without infringing on patents and this is a pretty difficult problem especially for Free and open source software. The Fedora policy is that we will try to avoid patent infringement issues by refraining from including software that has patent encumbered components where the patent owners are known to be aggressive and are enforcing the patents actively. If you suspect that you might be including code that is affected by patents such aggressive enforcers, it is recommend that you contact Fedora Legal in private (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal#Contact) since raising these issues in a public forum can draw the attention of patent owners and bring unnecessary legal trouble to developers. Free software developers should avoid trying to do the patent searches themselves. Many software patents are unenforceable or invalid but knowingly infringing on patents will have a higher penalty in many legal systems (In US, you will have to pay triple damages). There are multiple ways of dealing with problematic patent issues. a) get the patent owners to license the patents in writing in way that is compatible with free and open source including but not limited to the requirements of GPL license (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Patented_Software). b) upstream developers might be able to use a plugin system and Fedora can simply refrain from including those plugins. Users from regions where software patents are not valid can continue using such plugins obtained from third party repositories. This is the case for multimedia frameworks such as gstreamer included in Fedora c) upstream developers might be able to workaround the patent by using a different implementation technique. You must coordinate with professional legal people on this. d) find prior art that invalidates those patents with the help of professional legal people. --- Comments? Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] Move code vs content into licensing guidelines
Hi This entire section would be a better fit as part of the licensing guidelines, IMO. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Code_Vs_Content The distinction is important because packaging committee is not in charge of the licensing guidelines. Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware
Hi Planet GNOME points to this bug now which is apparently non-redistributable firmware being included in Ubuntu for quite sometime. Just a heads up to make sure we aren't having the same problem. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-firmware/+bug/223212 Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] Another list of potential issues
Hi I know there are differences in legal policies but there might be common problems as well. http://www.mail-archive.com/gnewsense-...@nongnu.org/msg00125.html Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Question on legal issues
On 05/09/2009 12:40 PM, Panagiotis Galiotos wrote: Dear all I'm trying to get familiar with Fedora Core 9. I would like to ask you if I can use this OS in my work for making profit or if this kind of usage is not permitted under the licence terms of FC 9 ? Please let me know about that, since I'm a little confused with all the talk about licences, GNU etc. Is this licence about copying and redistributing the source code or does it refer to the terms of use ? Fedora has no use restrictions. You are free to use it commercially as well. You are free to copy and redistribute as many copies as you would like as well. Note however, with the lifecyle of Fedora, a month after Fedora 11 release, Fedora 9 will stop getting updates. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LifeCycle Also, it is not Fedora Core anymore but just Fedora since core and extras got merged together back before Fedora 7 release. Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] CEPL license - acceptable?
Hi It is a MPL variant but I would like legal to review the variations. http://www.celtx.com/CePL/ Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] Font license - free?
Hi Is this font license considered free for Fedora? http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com/aksharyogini.html Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] CATS Public License 1.1 a
Hi http://fpaste.org/paste/13016 The later versions of this software is now proprietary but the older versions have this modified version of MPL. Please review. Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] EUPL v1.1 ?
On 05/29/2009 12:40 PM, Caolán McNamara wrote: Assuming that the EUPL v1.1 remains unacceptable, can someone e.g. dual licence something as EUPL v1.X and say LGPLv2 in order to make it acceptable for us. If a software is dual licensed and if any one of them is acceptable to Fedora, the software will be permitted in Fedora (ie) if EUPL v1.x is not acceptable, then we would accept it in Fedora under the LGPLv2 license. Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] Songbird and EULA
Hi Potential issue with Songbird and EULA is brewing at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422#c64 Appreciate some comments from legal on this. Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono
On 06/29/2009 08:49 PM, drago01 wrote: On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: drago01 wrote: Another don't use $LANGUAGE because its evil post from RMS. So what? His concerns are real. Depends on how you read them and whether you agree with him or not. And for most cases I don't. Saying mono is evil while having DotGNU seems odd to me (http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/) Did you even read the article? I don't see where FSF cliams mono is evil. Their position is far more nuanced than that. What FSF is suggesting is to treat Mono purely as a (legacy) compatibility layer and not use it for new applications. This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used. The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk. Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] Fedora Mozilla trademark agreement
Hi, I have heard it exists but haven't actually seen it. Shouldn't it be publicly available? Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update
On 07/08/2009 03:43 AM, Luis Villa wrote: Sure, though of course we know they've gone around suing using companies before, so if I were a company-based contributor to Fedora (or a mirror) I'd be a bit twitchy. Then, it would be up to the company to consider joining OIN. You don't have to hold patents for that. Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] A new GCC runtime library license snag?
Hi, Just a heads up in case, Legal isn't aware of this problem http://lwn.net/Articles/343608/ Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] Re: can Libertine fonts be embedded in non-gpl application?
On 09/19/2009 08:17 PM, Brandon Casey wrote: I am interested in embedding the Libertine font within an application at work, so that this application can produce documents using the Libertine font. The target systems will not have the Libertine fonts installed. I know I can distribute the font files along side the application, but it would be nice if that was not necessary. The Libertine fonts are licensed as GPL with a font embedding exception. The wording of the exception talks about embedding the fonts in a document. Would embedding the font within the application (non-gpl) fall under the category of document, or would the compiled binary now fall under the terms of the GPL (which my employer is not interested in)? Any help or pointers to the appropriate source (possibly at Redhat) to contact is appreciated. Copying Fedora Legal list which is the right place for legal questions. Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] Adobe CMap and AGLFN data now free software!
Hi, FYI, http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/log/2009/09/24/adobe-data-freed/ Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] Re: New blog post
On 10/08/2009 12:40 AM, Colby Hoke wrote:. For example, there was a remix of the Truth Happens video that was put in with some very questionable material. It was offensive. Due to the copyright (back then we used copyright), we were able to go after that video and, I assume, have it taken it down. If you allow people to create remixes, they will create some bad remixes but so what? I know of exactly one example of such a thing tnat that is one you are citing here, in how many years of Red Hat putting out videos like this? The example also shows that people who actually go about creating such bad remixes don't have a damn about copyright or licensing. They just will do it and I am pretty sure I can find a copy of that video regardless of what Red Hat does at this point. Look at this this way: Red Hat releases tens of thousands of lines of code and content (such as documentation or even fonts) under various free and open source licenses. It is possible and even likely that someone will add a bad patch to what Red Hat has released or even fork it on occasions. It doesn't negate the benefits at all. Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
