, as defined in [3].
– Ben Beasley (FAS: music)
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/stockfish
[2] https://tests.stockfishchess.org/nns
[3]
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/e67cc979fd2c0e66dfc2b2f2daa0117458cfc462/src/evaluate.h#L42-L43
On 3/1/24 5:19 PM, Richard
Speaking as an experienced packager, not a member of the Fedora legal team:
Although some authors conflate it with “public domain,” CC0-1.0 is just
one type of ultra-permissive license. It is not-allowed for code in
Fedora due to concerns about patent-related language in the actual
CC0-1.0
Speaking as an unqualified observer, as I see it, there are three kinds
of work in this project:
- Work after 2017-12-01, which is BSD-3-Clause (only).
- Old work for which the maintainers could not secure consent for
relicensing, which is Apache-2.0 (only).
- Old work for which the
On 7/26/23 1:53 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Well in my proposal we're really only talking about a handful of
license texts that are known to get (typographically) updated only
very rarely and in nonsubstantive ways. The idea of having all
packages symbolically link to hundreds of
There are two relevant questions for mass conversion:
- Is there an unambiguous mapping from Callaway ID to SPDX ID?
- Are there other licenses that *should* be in the expression since we no
longer use the “effective license” concept?
The license-fedora2spdx tool can answer the first but not
The entire project remains (SPDX) MIT, except:
- versioneer.py is Unlicense (but is not packaged in the binary RPMs)
- snakemake/_version.py says:
This file is released into the public domain.
which would be LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain, except that the comments
in versioneer.py make
I am about to update a few packages that use header-only libraries (and which
do not use them only for tests that are not installed, as is often the case
with e.g. doctest-static) to include the licenses of those libraries in their
SPDX license expressions. The rationale is that header-only
While converting libIDL to SPDX (LGPLv2+ → LGPL-2.0-or-later), I noticed
that the documentation is actually GPLv3+. The libIDL-doc subpackage’s
License field is therefore corrected from LGPLv2+ to GPL-3.0-or-later.
– Ben Beasley (FAS music)
___
legal
for legal review, and the License field will be further
updated to use SPDX notation once that process is complete.
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/75
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/76
– Ben Beasley (FAS music
, whether in Source or Object form, except as required
in copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices.
– Ben Beasley (FAS music)
On 8/17/22 07:57, Benson Muite wrote:
The software wrk[0] is currently under review[1]. It uses a modified
Apache Software license[2]. Is this something
+” to “MPL-1.1 OR GPL-2.0-or-later OR LGPL-2.1-or-later”.
– Ben Beasley
___
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct
expression,
and I will update the PR before merging.
– Ben Beasley
On Sat, Jul 30, 2022, at 6:04 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 11:44 AM Ben Beasley wrote:
>>
>> In python-ezdxf 0.18, a few new Python modules are included that are
>> derived from other
, and
so the License will become:
(MIT AND (ISC AND MIT) AND (AGPL-3.0-only AND MIT))
In accordance with the updated requirements for license changes, I have
directed this message to both the devel list and the legal list.
– Ben Beasley
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ezdxf
Even with that approach, a lot of Fedora packagers like to use
conditionals and preserve the ability to do fast-forward merges to the
EPELs as well. I’m not sure there is a precedent for a mandatory mass
spec file change breaking that workflow; I would expect significant
pushback on the second
of the GPLv3
provides an “escape hatch” such that VST3 could be acceptable in Fedora
after all.
– Ben Beasley
On 7/29/21 2:46 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 11:33 AM Pamela Chestek wrote:
IMO, a requirement that a logo be included is not an additional restriction permitted
in the
past. Search https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main for “modif”
to find examples. There appears to be an exception for binary firmware
blobs, which does not apply here.
– Ben Beasley
On 5/30/21 12:00 PM, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
Hello,
In a review I came across this License
16 matches
Mail list logo
