TC == Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com writes:
TC It probably merits a separate entry, because it is a rather thorough
TC public domain declaration.
Does this have any of the issues that public domain has with respect to
people who live in countries where they cannot disclaim all of
A question occurred to me after doing a review recently about whether
Erlang source is compiled and linked together like C source or whether
the source files remain separate like, say, Python. The issue is an
Erlang package where some source files are LGPLv3+ but one is GPLv2+. I
took the safe
Does Fedora as a distro need to package AGPL (v3, if it matters)
software in any specific way to meet the requirements of the license?
Or do we simply provide a package (and src.rpm) and leave it up to the
person installing the software to make sure they comply?
- J
RF == Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com writes:
[Offensiveness of WTFPL text]
RF Agreed, this is unfortunate. :)
Might I suggest simply modifying the offensive language? I know license
proliferation is bad, but if the result is legally equivalent and serves
the necessary purpose then I
JK == Jan Klepek jan.kle...@brandforge.sk writes:
JK Hi, I'm working on packaging rubygem-ditz which is licensed under
JK GPLv3 ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525211 ). Ditz
JK require library rubygem-trollop which is under GPLv2 (
JK
RS == Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org writes:
RS Hi, http://aria2.sf.net was marked as GPLv2 so far. I recently
RS took over the package and noticed that the license is actually
RS GPLv2+ with an exception for OpenSSL. That doesn't seem to be
RS specifically covered under the licensing
TC == Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com writes:
TC pike: Not in Fedora.
FYI, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459579
If there's an issue, could you add a comment there?
- J
___
Fedora-legal-list mailing list
JB == Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com writes:
JB It would seem no. It has a very confusing 'not sold for profit'
JB item.
Note that Debian believes this is sufficiently free, because they have
no requirement that software be redistributable for profit on its own,
only as part of their
FL == Farkas Levente lfar...@lfarkas.org writes:
FL hi, i'd like to know that lwjgl is ok for fedora:
FL http://www.lwjgl.org/license.php thanks in advance. yours.
That's just 3-clause BSD, isn't it?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#New_BSD_.28no_advertising.2C_3_clause.29
It's
DM == Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net writes:
DM Am I mistaken? Is this licence acceptable for Fedora?
The info at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#What_about_the_RSA_license_on_their_MD5_implementation.3F_Isn.27t_that_GPL-incompatible.3F
seems to be on-point
This package brings up a couple of other issues.
Firstly, it's an emulator, but it doesn't seem to need any original
ROMs to run because they're written their own work-alikes. I'm
assuming this is OK, but I guess it's worth asking.
Secondly, those work-alike ROMs are included in pre-assembled
DM == Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DM Hi. SciLab has changed its licence to CeCILLv2[1], which claims to
DM be GPLv2+ compatible. I tried reading it and it gave me a
DM headache. It seems to contain a few dubious passages[2]. Could RH
DM Legal have a look at it and
TC == Tom \spot\ Callaway Tom writes:
TC Given that the author wrote the debian/copyright file, we can
TC take that as his intent.
Would it be possible to add a bit to the Licensing page or FAQ about
determining intent in situations like this? Or it would simply be
better to ask in each case?
This may be a FAQ, but searching didn't turn it up. If it's not
already documented, perhaps we could get it into the FAQ page because
this question comes up often enough when doing package reviews.
The problem is code which has no license information at all.
Sometimes there are copyright
RF == Richard Fontana [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RF Disclaimer: IAARHL, IANYL, TINLA
No problem. However, please forgive this response for I am new to
this list and don't know who everyone is. I simply do not know if
should take your comments as rendered opinion for the purposes of
acceptance
15 matches
Mail list logo
