://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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
