[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Fedora adoption of SPDX ids and changes to packaging guidelines

> Jilayne Lovejoy writes: > https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1142 > Can someone merge that PR on Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning (US > time)? I will be watching the PR and can merge it when it's done, but feel free to ping me. - J<

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: ttyp0 font license

> Richard Fontana writes: > I am not sure if this should be acceptable for Fedora. My concern is > that the "UW" naming prohibition is unreasonably restrictive. Does > anyone have thoughts on this? Naming can be difficult, but I believe we've long accepted clauses forcing renaming. A

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Consider adding MVT License 1.0 to list of allowed/good licenses

>> Therefore, the goal of this license is to prohibit the use of MVT >> (and any other software licensed the same) for the purpose of >> adversarial forensics. That sounds like a field-of-use restriction. I can't imagine how such a license can be free under the usual definitions. For the

[Fedora-legal-list] Licenses for AGG

Just wanted to double check the proper License: tag for the following license file. I believe it should be "Copyright only or BSD", but our page for Copyright only doesn't use exactly the same text and the plethora of BSD licenses is always fun. This software (and a bunch of other things) has

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Mbrola voice files

> "MH" == Miro Hrončok writes: MH> Doing this in Fedora is (or at least was) not allowed: MH> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not_useful_without_external_bits Of course that just points to an empty page. The link you are looking for is

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: SoftFloat-COPYING is legal ?

> "SB" == Sérgio Basto writes: SB> Hello opencv-3.4.2+ have this core module 3rdparty [1], may I SB> include it in Fedora ? That is the 3-clause BSD license: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD?rd=Licensing/BSD#New_BSD_.28no_advertising.2C_3_clause.29 - J<

[Fedora-legal-list] Don't Be a Dick Public License

I stumbled across a piece of code under the "Don't Be a Dick Public License", which has a convenient web site: http://www.dbad-license.org/ Yeah, it's another "semi-joke" license. Supposed to be funny, but confusing and contradictory. The license text is as follows: = # DON'T BE A DICK

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: No activity on bug blocking FE-Legal

> "PO" == Peter Oliver writes: PO> Bug 1433617 (Review Request: python-proselint - A linter for prose) PO> has been blocking FE-Legal since September of last year. Is there PO> anything additional I need to do to get this looked at, or will it PO>

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Nagios Open Software License: free software?

> "RM" == Robert-André Mauchin writes: RM> It it Fedora-compatible? I can't imagine this could be considered free. We do allow clauses that say you must change the name if you fork. So do we allow clauses that say you _cannot_ change the name if you fork? And clause 6

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Is OpenSpades content license acceptable for COPR?

> "JKS" == Jared K Smith writes: JKS> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is JKS> that packages in COPR still have to comply with the Fedora JKS> packaging requirements which pertain to JKS> copyright/trademark/patent/trade secrets. Or has

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: S3TC / libtxc_dxtn

> "CF" == Colin Finck writes: CF> So is it really safe to ship S3TC-related code yet? If your lawyers have advised you differently than Red Hat's lawyers have presumably advised Fedora, then you should certainly follow the advice of your lawyers. I wouldn't expect a

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Pyramid and the Repoze license

> "RB" == Randy Barlow writes: RB> I learned today while asking for licensing clarification[0] on a RB> package that Pyramid and some other Pylons project use the Repoze[1] RB> license, which is not on Fedora's approved license list[2]. Is that not just the

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Adopt Debian-style 'common licenses' convention?

> "RB" == Randy Barlow writes: RB> I liked Miro's suggestion of hardlinking the licenses, but it's RB> important to sure they are actually identical with checksums (i.e., RB> don't just use the License field because what if the upstream RB> project subtly

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: New github TOS

> "SG" == Stuart Gathman writes: SG> Should Fedora Legal issue an opinion on this? I doubt Red Hat would officially wade into this in a public way. But Richard Fontana has commented on twitter: https://twitter.com/richardfontana/status/837370085392199681

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: MP3 status?

> "MM" == Matthew Miller writes: MM> Unfortuantely, I can't comment on the details. That's fine, but what's important is that _someone_ comment on the details, before the updated packages with mp3 decoding arrive at the mirrors and, subsequently, user desktops. -

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Licensing question re: assembly include file from Texas Instruments

It would be useful to have a lawyer provide an opinion on exactly what can be done with such a file, and of course you almost certainly won't get one here, though I'm sure someone here might be able to point you to a lawyer who is willing to provide advice, perhaps even without cost. But here are

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Licensing question re: assembly include file from Texas Instruments

> "BR" == Ben Rosser writes: BR> However, as best as I can tell, this copyright statement does not BR> explicitly grant the right to redistribute this file. It doesn't give permission to modify, either, or (of course) to redistribute modified copies. There may be

[Fedora-legal-list] Question about licensing my own code

In ome of the code I have written I've included the following notice: " Authorship and License -- All of this code was originally written by Jason Tibbitts and has been donated to the public domain. If you require a statement of license, please consider

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Policy change on emulators

> "TC" == Tom Callaway writes: TC> That's a very strange situation, but I don't think it would affect TC> inclusion of openmw in Fedora. I would think that it requiring S3TC would be more of a blocker. But then again, maybe it's possible for someone to cook up their

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: TeX licensing

> "FW" == Florian Weimer writes: FW> Are you sure licenses of the core components were even investigated? I thought so so, but you would have to talk to the people who did the work to be sure. - J< ___ legal mailing list

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Henry Spencer's license

TC == Tom Callaway tcall...@redhat.com writes: TC 3) Adjust the license tag to include HSRL. Sorry to keep asking crazy nitpicky questions, but would this have any effect on on all of those Perl packages which don't include a license other than same as Perl.? - J

[Fedora-legal-list] Prominent notice of changes (Was: Suitability of EPICS Open License)

TC == Tom Callaway tcall...@redhat.com writes: TC Free and GPL compatible. Interesting. The clause about modified copies carrying prominent notices isn't completely clear to me. The GPL (v2, at least) requires that modified _source files_ carry a prominent notice (which is probably something

[Fedora-legal-list] 04Font licensing

Recently a package (apx) was found which bundled a font. A discussion with the apx developers can be found at https://github.com/projecthamster/apx/issues/4 The question is whether the apx developer's statement that he received written permission to relicense the font as CC-BY is sufficient, or

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] 04Font licensing

And to follow up, here is the original license, in case it's actually acceptable: http://www.dsg4.com/04/extra/bitmap/about.html It's a bitmap and almost entirely in Japanese. My Japanese is sufficient to decypher the kana for bitmap font and that's about it. But it does say you may use them as

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] 04Font licensing

MT == Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org writes: MT This Japanese text says: Wow, thanks! At least it's clearly unacceptable and we don't have to get into the legal nuances of Japanese translation. So this falls back to the question of whether the apx developer's statement that upstream

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] SOFA software license

TC == Tom Callaway tcall...@redhat.com writes: TC It is not, this license is non-free because of clause 3c. My curiosity requires that I ask if clause 4 is field of use restriction: 4. You shall not cause the SOFA software to be brought into disrepute, either by misuse, or use for

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] python-virtualenvwrapper licensing

RB == RJ Bean rb...@redhat.com writes: RB I'm thinking about packaging python-virtualenvwrapper for use with RB moksha 2.0. It has a permissive but non-standard license: Is this not pretty much word-for-word https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#CMU_Style ? - J

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] SuperLU license

SK == Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com writes: SK Hi, I am trying to package SuperLU for Fedora. Can you please let me SK know if the following is a BSD license? Looks to me to pretty much identical to the standard 3-clause BSD license, though I have to admit to not understanding the

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] GIMP vs. poppler licensing, was: So you want to test an unstable GIMP...

NP == Nils Philippsen n...@redhat.com writes: NP Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be NP able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have NP GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3) as its license? This is covered by

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] netperf license

Mention of non-commercial purposes only would seem to me to render this non-free: The enclosed software and documentation includes copyrighted works of Hewlett-Packard Co. For as long as you comply with the following limitations, you are hereby authorized to (i) use, reproduce, and modify

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Correct tag for GFDL 1.1 or later?

BW == Bruno Wolff br...@wolff.to writes: BW I am getting lint warnings for using GFDLv1.1+. Is there some BW other tag I am supposed to use or is lint wrong? The canonical list is at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing Says the appropriate tag is GFDL. - J

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Drupal module licensing

OP == Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com writes: OP Most of the drupal modules that I've looked into packaging do not OP have any license preamble in the code. They contain a copy of the OP GPLv2 license in LICENSE.txt. As such, I've marked them as GPLv2. Shouldn't that be GPL+? Obviously

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] C Library ABI for ARM Architecture

SK == Shakthi Kannan shakthim...@gmail.com writes: SK Hi, Could you please let me know if the license (Section 1.4) SK mentioned in the specification document, C Library ABI for ARM SK Architecture [1] an acceptable one for Fedora? A couple of points; I'm not a lawyer. It does not seem to

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Fwd: URGENT Notice of Internet Intellectual Property Rights Fedoraproject Dispute in China

MAS == Michel Alexandre Salim sali...@fedoraproject.org writes: MAS Dear spot legal team, Not sure how trustworthy this email is -- MAS after all, how did they somehow think I'm the CEO of Fedora MAS Project? -- but if there is indeed a company trying to register MAS Fedora domains then we

[Fedora-legal-list] jogl licensing

So ages ago the jogl package was removed from the distribution due to licensing issues. At the time the indicated reason was that jogl was under the SGI Free Software License B, which as we all know was finally cleaned up a couple of years ago. However, it doesn't seem to be that simple, because

[Fedora-legal-list] LGPL for noncommercial works only?

The wiiuse library from http://www.wiiuse.net/ has an odd license; it is GPLv3 or, for noncommercial uses, LGPLv3. I'm having trouble understanding how that kind of use restriction works or if it works at all. So: Is this kind of thing acceptable for Fedora? What would the License: tag read?

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] LGPL for noncommercial works only?

MM == Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net writes: MM By the way, it's not clear to me whether the choice of GPLv3 rather MM than GPLv3+ was intentional. The source is pretty explicitly GPLv3+. MM You might ask upstream whether they will grant GPLv3+, to to make MM things easier in the

[Fedora-legal-list] OpenSSL and ERPL compatibility

Simple question: Is it OK to link code under the Erlang Public License 1.1 (ERPL) with the OpenSSL libraries? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/ErlangPublicLicense http://www.sdisw.com/openssl.htm It would sure be fun to see a huge compatibility matrix of all of these weird licenses. -

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Regarding ghc-failure

lc == lakshminaras2...@gmail com lakshminaras2...@gmail.com writes: lc Given that the license field in the cabal file is not textually lc matching the license name that is listed in the webpage, is it ok to lc go ahead and use Public Domain in the spec file? That's taking things a bit

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Fwd: URGENT Registration Notice For fedoraproject

I got one of those for a domain I own (fvwm.org) a couple of months ago and it immediately pegged my bovine excrement meter. - J ___ legal mailing list legal@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Iozone removed from Fedora but still in EPEL

TC == Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com writes: TC This needs to be killed in EPEL as well. We should make sure it TC doesn't end up in future repodata, as painful as that is. I've dead.package'd it and requested that it be nuked from the next push. It looks like that's what needs to