[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Custom license for bencode.js

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Tom Callaway wrote: > On 03/16/2016 09:46 AM, Stuart Gathman wrote: >> The cjdns package - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268716 >> - is GPLv3, with some stuff BSD, MIT, and ISC. I delete GPLv2 and ASL >> 2.0 stuff in %prep. >> >> There is one file,

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

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:23:45PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: >> Are the FreeDOS sources under a Fedora-acceptable license? > > Probably needs review. It's mostly GPLv2, but some of the included > software has various other licenses. See >

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

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Tom Callaway wrote: > On 05/04/2016 04:18 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: >> What about things like openmw that in theory can be run with free >> assests, but for which there really isn't anything beyond a demo for >> other than the assests from a proprietary game? > > T

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: License files in debuginfo packages

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:36:05AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: >> Hi Jason, >> >> On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 04:18 -0500, Jason Tibbitts wrote: >> > However, RPM itself generates debuginfo packages automatically in a way >> > that's not really c

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: radare2: LGPLv3.0 with exception

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Siddharth Sharma wrote: > Hi, > > Can someone please look into this? > > Thanks > > On Jan 16, 2017 1:54 PM, "Siddharth Sharma" wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Can someone please look into radre2 (revering framework) License. >> https://github.com/radare/radare2, code seem

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: CLA from Intel

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > Hello. > > Forwarded from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413646#c2 > > The upstream of librealsense, Intel demands that when we want to > contribute to librealsense via github pull request (for example): > > https://github.com/I

[Fedora-legal-list] SPDX license tags and Rust packaging

Hello all, I know that it's been discussed from time to time about using SPDX identifiers for our license tags[1][2]. In the Rust SIG, we're beginning the work to figure out the packaging of Rust things. Cargo, the Rust equivalent of Python's pip, enforces the usage of SPDX identifiers for license

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: SPDX license tags and Rust packaging

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Haïkel wrote: > 2017-02-23 15:31 GMT+01:00 Neal Gompa : >> Hello all, >> >> I know that it's been discussed from time to time about using SPDX >> identifiers for our license tags[1][2]. In the Rust SIG, we're >> beginn

[Fedora-legal-list] AC-3 in Fedora

Hey, So, people on the internet are talking about "AC-3 Freedom Day" being yesterday[1], that is, the last standards-essential patent expired yesterday at midnight. Can we look at allowing AC-3 stuff in Fedora now? [1]: https://ac3freedomday.org/ -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! __

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Does Bodhi need to be covered by the FPCA?

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:57:08AM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: >> On 03/28/2017 10:52 AM, Randy Barlow wrote: >> > For a long time I didn't know that Bodhi should be covered by the FPCA >> > so some commits have gone in from contributors wh

[Fedora-legal-list] mp3 patents + encoding in Fedora

Hey, I just saw that Technicolor has terminated its mp3 patent licensing as of April 23[1]. Would this potentially mean we can start having mp3 encoding in Fedora now? [1]: https://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/ff/amm/prod/audiocodec/audiocodecs/mp3.html -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >> (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git) > > I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need > for FPCA. Maybe this is an opportun

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Adam Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Matthew Miller > wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >>> (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git) >> >> I know Richard Fontana has expressed some intere

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel?

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:39 AM, wrote: > Why does no one care that Brad Spengler of GRSecurity is blatantly violating > the intention of the rightsholders to the Linux Kernel? > He is also violating the license grant, Courts would not be fooled by his > scheme to prevent redistribution. > > The

[Fedora-legal-list] S3TC / libtxc_dxtn

Hey, With the S3TC patent expired[1], can we pull libtxc_dxtn into Fedora proper now? [1]: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=S3TC-Patent-Expires-Next-Week -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ legal mailing list -- lega

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

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:47 AM, Yanko Kaneti wrote: > On Mon, 2017-10-02 at 14:46 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: >> Hey, >> >> With the S3TC patent expired[1], can we pull libtxc_dxtn into Fedora >> proper now? > > This seems to be going directly into mesa proper and p

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

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Tom Callaway wrote: > Also, fwiw, I gave Adam the all clear on this, I've just been traveling and > hadn't had a chance to reply to this thread until now. > Sweet! You guys are awesome! -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Is legal mention packages that aren't in Fedora repos ?

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > On Tue, 2018-01-02 at 10:50 +, Sérgio Basto wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Before commit it and push, I'd like have clearance, that is not >> breaking any legal police of Fedora . >> >> We have mlt in Fedora repos and mlt-freeworld but it is complex

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: BSD 2-Clause license

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Fernando Nasser wrote: > > Hi, > > > Would it be possible to add: > > BSD 2-clause > > to our table of valid licenses? > > This is already accepted under the "BSD" moniker for Fedora license tags. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! __

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Last U.S. MPEG-2 Patent Expires on Feb. 13th!

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:41 AM, Tom Callaway wrote: > > On 01/30/2018 01:07 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: >> someone asked in ask site [1] >> >> Can Fedora consider allowing the package "libmpeg2" into the Fedora >> family for the next release? > > Patent situations are rarely as simple as they appear t

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Last U.S. MPEG-2 Patent Expires on Feb. 13th!

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 1:21 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:41 AM, Tom Callaway wrote: >>> >>> On 01/30/2018 01:07 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: >>>> someone asked in ask site [1] >

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Last U.S. MPEG-2 Patent Expires on Feb. 13th!

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 1:21 PM, Josh Boyer >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: >>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:41 AM, To

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Questions about some things I'm doing for my SIG

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 05:08:04PM -, Abhiram Kuchibhotla wrote: >> I have a few questions about some things I'm doing for the Fedora Live SIG >> that I started a week ago. >> Firstly, are SIGs allowed to have their own branding? >> Th

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: George Douros' fonts can no longer be packaged in Fedora

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 3:36 AM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > Hello, > > Following this discussion: > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/EC6I35ILFICKY5W5XTHYJC6UH36B2UQS/ > > it was suggested that I alert the good folks on this list. > > To summarize

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Licences not listed on the Licensing wiki page

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:42 PM Artur Iwicki wrote: > Hello. > Recently I've downloaded the primary.xml for F28 and ran a check comparing the licences of packages in the repo against good licences listed on the Licensing wiki page. > There are a couple licences that are used by a few packages, b

[Fedora-legal-list] Microsoft & OIN - ExFAT, subpixel font rendering (ClearType), etc. allowed now

Hey, Today, I just saw the news that Microsoft has joined the OIN[1]. Does this allow Fedora to finally include ExFAT in the distribution, as well as enable ClearType-style font rendering (subpixel rgba hinting)? [1]: https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pressrelease_details/?id=89 -- 真実はいつも一つ！

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Microsoft & OIN - ExFAT, subpixel font rendering (ClearType), etc. allowed now

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:37 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > Hey, > > Today, I just saw the news that Microsoft has joined the OIN[1]. Does > this allow Fedora to finally include ExFAT in the distribution, as > well as enable ClearType-style font rendering (subpixel rgba hintin

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Expat

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 5:07 PM Gwyn Ciesla wrote: > > Hi! I recently submitted libsquash for review: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1701995 > > licensecheck calls the licensing of this code Expat, which is a more > permissive MIT. I don't see Expat on the Licenses list. Should I

[Fedora-legal-list] New open-source (?) license: DO WHATEVER YOU FEEL LIKE, I DON'T F*CKING CARE LICENSE

Hey, I recently encountered a new license in a web app that a friend of mine showed me: https://github.com/JacobCZ/flask-directory-list/blob/master/LICENSE This license seems to be a copyleft-ish version of the WTFPL, but I'm not sure. Is this a license that qualifies on Fedora's good license li

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: How to write License field for packages bundling mutliple others

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 9:25 AM Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > In Rust world we package all crates as source code in -devel packages. > Then we use them to build the real applications. > > Some time ago, someone noticed that we don't put licenses of those > -devel packages into a resulting RPM with app

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Partio license

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 2:49 PM Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > > Hello team, > I am planning to package Partio (https:partio.us) to support the incoming > Open Shading Language (https://github.com/imageworks/OpenShadingLanguage) > needed for Blender 3D. > Could someone investigate the license > htt

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Legal blockers regarding WSL release?

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 9:12 AM CJ Harries wrote: > > 2. WSL 2 introduced a boilerplate project to connect new distros > (http://web.archive.org/web/https://github.com/microsoft/WSL-DistroLauncher). > I believe (haven't tested; please correct me if wrong) it can be run only > using newer Micros

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Determining minimum package review requirements relating to licenses

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 1:59 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 3:16 AM Jason Tibbitts wrote: > > > > One of the various reasons for having package reviews is having a human > > verify that the packager's choice of License: tag is valid. The > > Packaging Committee is was face

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: CNEWS license

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:59 PM Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 12:49 AM Jerry James wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:33 AM Jens-Ulrik Petersen >> wrote: >> > I am trying to package¹ editline² for Fedora, >> >> Please check the libedit package and see if that is th

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: How to name the license in the spec

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:30 AM Jaroslav Skarvada wrote: > > > > - Original Message - > > Am Montag, den 24.08.2020, 03:18 -0400 schrieb Jaroslav Skarvada: > > > Hi, > > > > > > the code contains the following text: > > > * wrote this file. As long as you retain this > > > notice you >

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: How to name the license in the spec

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:59 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 8:16 AM Jaroslav Skarvada wrote: > > > > - Original Message - > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:41 AM David Cantrell > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Back t

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: ASL 2.0 with exceptions

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 8:52 AM Olivier Lemasle wrote: > > Other projects use this "Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception", such as > https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasm-tools/ and > https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime. They provide Rust crates such > as https://crates.io/crates/wat, whi

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: ASL 2.0 with exceptions

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 1:19 PM Olivier Lemasle wrote: > > > "ASL 2.0 with exceptions" is sufficient. > > Thank you Neal for your answer. However, "ASL 2.0 with exceptions" is not in > the licenses list [1]; should it be added? > > [1] > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: ASL 2.0 with exceptions

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:25 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:20 PM David Cantrell wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 01:21:53PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > >It probably should be. > > > > Please also add it as an entry in this file:

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Quick question about a BSD like license

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 3:42 AM Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > > Hello, > > The following license is BSD but with an extra clause regarding binary > distribution, it should be okay I think but I just want confirmation it's not > a > problem: > > =

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Steinberg VST3 License question

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 by the GPLv3. Under Section 7(b), it is not a "legal notice" (a > trademark is not a notice, it's branding) or an "author attribution" > (copyright

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: The FPCA’s “Moral Rights Clause Waiver” should be updated for CC BY-SA 4.0

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:09 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:40 PM Jason Yundt wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > In the FCPA, The definition for “Moral Rights Clause Waiver” references > > “Section 4d of CC-BY-SA”, but that subsection doesn’t exist. > > > > Also, the Other F

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: The FPCA’s “Moral Rights Clause Waiver” should be updated for CC BY-SA 4.0

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:06 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:19 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:09 PM Richard Fontana > > wrote: > > > > I don't know if it is better to fix this error or to ins

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: The FPCA’s “Moral Rights Clause Waiver” should be updated for CC BY-SA 4.0

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 7:05 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:10:41PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On the topic of FPCA improvements, it would probably make sense (if > > > the FPCA is retained) to replace the MIT license as the default code &

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: The FPCA’s “Moral Rights Clause Waiver” should be updated for CC BY-SA 4.0

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 7:11 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:02:39PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > > Indeed, this should have been caught when the FPCA was updated to > > reference CC BY-SA 4.0 as the default content license. The relevant > > perceived problematic feature

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: The FPCA’s “Moral Rights Clause Waiver” should be updated for CC BY-SA 4.0

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 8:35 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 08:31:37PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > For what it's worth, Red Hat *did* have a project that used a > > traditional CLA for a long time: eCos. Today, it uses a CAA to assign > >

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: The FPCA’s “Moral Rights Clause Waiver” should be updated for CC BY-SA 4.0

On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 7:38 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 7:51 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 7:05 PM Matthew Miller > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:10:41PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: >

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: The FPCA’s “Moral Rights Clause Waiver” should be updated for CC BY-SA 4.0

On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 9:01 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 8:45 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 7:38 AM Josh Boyer > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 7:51 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > >

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: fedora-logos license

On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:05 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Hi. > > Fedora-logos.spec contains > >License: Licensed only for approved usage, see COPYING for details. > > This is hard to handle in automatad manipulation/validation. Can we get > actual name for this license. Short name listed o

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Boolean logic in license

On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 11:21 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > I want to clarify one thing I am working on. When I have this string in > License tag in spec: > > Good License or Bad license > > Then the result is Good license and the package is allowed to be in Fedora, > right? > Yes. However,

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Boolean logic in license

On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 1:31 AM Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 12:06 AM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > > > On 1/4/22 9:27 AM, David Cantrell wrote: > > > > Does it follow that we [Fedora] take an open source project that is > > > dual licensed and use the license that is acceptable

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: SPDX identifiers

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:13 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Mathew and Richard several times in past days mentioned intention to migrate > to SPDX identifiers in Fedora. > > Is somebody actually working on this? Is there some ETA? Or is it just > "intention". > It's being figured out primarily b

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: LLVM Licensing

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 11:27 AM Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 11:14 AM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2/9/22 9:08 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 10:53 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > > >> * Serge Guelton: > > >> > > >>> the LLVM project has move

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Package Licensing - Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) License

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:29 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > I'm not sure who is authorized to be the "someone on the Fedora side" to give > the OK, but I had a (re)read of the license and here are a few thoughts: > > I think it meets the concept of free/open for Fedora as I understand it. The >

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: good/bad v. approved/not-approved

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 2:03 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > Hi all, > > > As has been mentioned here prior, Richard and I are having a look at the > Licensing part of the Wiki with an eye towards any updates and improvements, > as well as moving that to the Fedora Docs (along with David C's work o

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: good/bad v. approved/not-approved

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 5:08 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > > > On 3/3/22 2:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:03:15PM -0700, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > >> > >> Given that "good" and "bad" are historical for the Fedora licensing > >> documentation - what are your thoughts on this

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: SPDX Change for F37?

On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 9:46 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > It was already mentioned here in past - should we create Change proposal for > F37 about migration of short license names > to SPD identifiers? > > The benefits is IMHO obvious: we can track what is done / what needs to be > done. And at t

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Do I have to remove the Fedora logos when redistributing a modified version of a Fedora ISO?

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 6:41 AM T-vK T-vK wrote: > > Thank you! :) Installing the `generic-logos` package as you described > successfully removed the logos. Although the "OS Name" in Gnome's "About" > window still says "Fedora 34 (Workstation Edition)", but the Logos are gone. > I wasn't able t

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: SPDX Change for F37?

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 12:30 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 22. 04. 22 17:08, Ben Beasley wrote: > > especially if (I didn’t check) it’s not possible to conditionalize the > > License > > field. > > That is possible. > It is also not worth it unless we're actively testing every build's license f

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Third-party repositories

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 9:00 AM Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 9:29 PM Vitaly Zaitsev wrote: > > > We can't ship RPM Fusion because it contains patent-encumbered and > > proprietary software, right? But at the same time, we can ship Flathub > > which contains the same software

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: license of the binary policy

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:37 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > Hi Fedora legal and packaging, > > I'm cross-posting this, as I think it's relevant to both groups. > > The current policy for filling out the license field of the spec file (as > described at > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/pack

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: license of the binary policy

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 1:03 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > > > On 5/23/22 10:44 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:37 PM Jilayne Lovejoy > > wrote: > >> Hi Fedora legal and packaging, > >> > >> I'm cross-posting this

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: license of the binary policy

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 3:53 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > > > On 5/23/22 1:30 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 2:03 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > >> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 1:03 PM Jilayne Lovejoy > >> wrote: > >>> > >>

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: license of the binary policy

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 4:29 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 3:58 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > > I'm also wondering where the "required to document source licensing for > > > bundled stuff" is documented? Can you po

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: process for review of licenses

On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 2:09 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 1:58 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > > > > How to request review of a new license > > If you find a license for a package you want to include in Fedora and that > > license is not listed in the Fedora License Data, yo

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: process for review of licenses

On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 6:01 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > > > On 6/8/22 12:23 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 2:09 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 1:58 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > >>> ` If the license is not on

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: process for review of licenses

On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 7:06 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > > > On 6/9/22 4:27 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 6:01 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 6/8/22 12:23 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: process for review of licenses

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 9:35 AM Richard Fontana wrote: > > "Blocking on the SPDX-legal team" is the one aspect of this process > that I am somewhat worried about, and I think it might be something > unprecedented for Fedora, so it's important that people can get behind > that as an experiment. Als

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: process for review of licenses

to you) what would be purpose of this ML, if > > all discussion happens in some issue tracker. > > > > > Maybe for people like me who are plugged into too many issue trackers as it > is. :-) Although a tag for #legal on discussion.fp.o could be nice… ;-) > > > >

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Publishing containers based on Fedora

On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 7:15 AM Andreas Hartmann wrote: > > Hello, > > > since I haven't received a response in 2 weeks now, I assume that it is indeed > fine to publish containers based on `fedora:36` or `fedora-minimal:36` images > without further modifications. Furthermore I assume that this do

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: process for review of licenses

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:00 AM David Cantrell wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 04:32:10PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 3:52 PM Justin W. Flory (he/him) > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > &g

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: process for review of licenses

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:12 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:00 AM David Cantrell wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 04:32:10PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 3:52 PM Justin W. Flory (he/him) > >

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: process for review of licenses

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 12:19 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > > > On 6/14/22 9:30 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:12 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:00 AM David Cantrell > >> wrote: > >>> On Fri, Ju

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: LGPL-ish license in Package Review for sfexp

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 4:11 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 3:04 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > > > Ah yes, the old - add some extra stuff to the standard LGPL or GPL license > > header... which really doesn't seem to do anyone downstream any favors, but > > I digress. > >

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Is ECDSA secp256k1 elliptic curve permitted to be packaged in Fedora?

On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 8:25 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > > > On 8/25/22 6:59 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 12:46:10PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> IANAL or anybody from Fedora, but a similar > >> thread is still waiting for > >> a larger proclaimation about Elliptic

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: rpmlint and SPDX licenses: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause

ary TOML file that rpmlint will source rather than me maintaining another copy of this. rpmlint will handle both Fedora style and SPDX license tags once we have that data file in place. -- Neal Gompa (FAS: ngompa) ___ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fe

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: rpmlint and SPDX licenses: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 7:48 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 31. 08. 22 13:39, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 5:50 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> > >> Hello license folks. > >> > >> I see that Fedora's rpmlint is yet to be taught

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Mesa patented codecs approval

On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 9:06 AM Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > > Hello, > > So recently Mesa disabled by default patented codecs. They added an option to > re-enable it > with -Dvideo-codecs=h264dec,h264enc,h265dec,h265enc,vc1dec > > Dave Airlie elected to not include this line in: > https://src.f

[Fedora-legal-list] Request to stop hobbling crypto libraries

Hey all, As part of the discussion going on about Mesa on devel@, the situation around OpenSSL was brought up, and Adam Williamson brought up that we might not need to hobble OpenSSL anymore[1]. A quick check seems to indicate we no longer do it for GnuTLS either, and haven't for many years[2]. C

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Request to stop hobbling crypto libraries

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 7:59 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 07:37:33PM +0200, Neal Gompa wrote: > > around OpenSSL was brought up, and Adam Williamson brought up that we > > might not need to hobble OpenSSL anymore[1]. A quick check seems to > > ind

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Request to stop hobbling crypto libraries

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 7:57 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > Hi Neal, > > Thanks for raising this here. I saw some of the thread on devel, but when > thread get long, it's sometimes hard to know what the specific ask is. > > To that end, could you provide a bit of a description as to what is curren

[Fedora-legal-list] Is the Monkey's Audio license "good"?

Hello, I recently read a thread about someone asking about adding the Monkey's Audio codec to openSUSE and it having an odd license[1], and I was thinking of bringing this to Fedora as well. However, the license[2] is confusing, and I'm not sure if it necessarily qualifies under Fedora's definiti

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Is the Monkey's Audio license "good"?

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 2:51 PM Peter Lemenkov wrote: > > Hello All! > I don't think it worths the efforts - to package original MAC sources. > I'd look at libdemac instead (clean-room developed decoder-only > library): > > https://github.com/Rockbox/rockbox/tree/master/lib/rbcodec/codecs/demac >

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Brainpool Curves in Fedora (openssl, libgcrypt, gnupg)

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:29 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:24 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > I use redhat.bugzilla.com very infrequently > > bugzilla.redhat.com, that is Edit the Blocks field to remove the FE_LEGAL BZ and make a comment noting that this is fine. -- 真

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Moolticute SPDX update

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 1:00 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 10:29 AM Arthur Bols wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm in the progress of migrating the Mooltice [0] package to SPDX, but > > it proved to be more difficult than anticipated. I would be grateful if > > someone could

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Moolticute SPDX update

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 11:45 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > > > On 11/9/22 11:00 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 10:29 AM Arthur Bols wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I'm in the progress of migrating the Mooltice [0] package to SPDX, but > >> it proved to be more difficult than

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: OCaml linking exception

On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 6:15 PM Jerry James wrote: > > We have quite a few packages in Fedora that are released under some > version of the LGPL with what SPDX calls OCaml-LGPL-linking-exception. > That exception does not appear in the rpmlint-fedora-license-data > package. I'm looking at /etc/xd

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Additional SPDX questions for .NET 7 (dotnet7.0)

On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:57 AM Omair Majid wrote: > > Hi Jilayne, > > Richard Fontana writes: > > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 1:07 PM Omair Majid wrote: > >> > >> > >> 4. What license is this file under? > >> > >> > >> https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/libraries/System.Text.Regu

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Guidelines for dealing with licensing issues in distributed packages

On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 6:18 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > > What's the best way to raise licensing issues in already-added packages? > I think there are largely two cases: > > * Fedora and its distributors comply with the licensing terms, but the > license is not obviously on Fedora's allowed list

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: License compliance in fedora-review

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 1:19 AM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > > Hi Benson, Richard, > > To add a couple thought to this topic, which I see raised in various > venues every so often: > > > On 1/4/23 12:11 AM, Benson Muite wrote: > > Hi Richard, > >> Fedora used to maintain in its old license list an i

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: License compliance in fedora-review

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 2:04 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 2:47 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > It's fine that SPDX doesn't offer this guidance, but Fedora as a > > distributor *needs* it. Fedora provided very valuable guidance with > > i

[Fedora-legal-list] Exception needed for KDE GitLab CI scripts being licensed CC0-1.0

Hey folks, So I was working through the review of flatpak-kcm[1], where I discovered that KDE GitLab CI scripts are currently licensed CC0-1.0. I'm in the process of making a request to KDE to consider relicensing all such code/scripts to MIT, but in the meantime, is it okay for us to have CC0-1.

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Exception needed for KDE GitLab CI scripts being licensed CC0-1.0

On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 2:03 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 7:48 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > Hey folks, > > > > So I was working through the review of flatpak-kcm[1], where I > > discovered that KDE GitLab CI scripts are currently

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Exception needed for KDE GitLab CI scripts being licensed CC0-1.0

On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 10:53 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 2:39 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > Anyway, I have previously thought that we should have a blanket > > > exception for uses of CC0 that result entirely from upstream attempts &g

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: License for perlunicook.pod

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:13 AM Jitka Plesnikova wrote: > > Hi, > > Could you please help me to find the correct license for file > perlunicook.pod[1]? > It is part of 'perl-doc'. > > The license text is: > > Copyright © 2012 Tom Christiansen. > > This program is free software; you may redistrib

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Yuzu: A Nintendo Switch emulator - Legal questions

On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 5:40 AM Steve Cossette wrote: > > Good morning to you all, > > I was thinking about packaging Yuzu for Fedora. Yuzu is an emulator for the > Nintendo Switch, which requires you to dump your Nintendo Switch's firmware > to work. (I believe the emulator will actually start w

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Proposal for '/usr/share/licenses/common-licenses/'

On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 5:14 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > I'm interested in proposing that Fedora adopt a 'common-licenses' > directory convention, similar to Debian and Debian-derived > distributions, whereby default installations of Fedora would include a > prepopulated subdirectory /usr/share/

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Proposal for '/usr/share/licenses/common-licenses/'

On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 5:56 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 5:27 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > I am not opposed to this idea, though I guess we'd probably want to > > use SPDX identifiers for the text files? > > Yes, that makes sense,

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Request to stop hobbling crypto libraries

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 3:45 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 9:31 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 7:57 PM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: > > > > > > Hi Neal, > > > > > > Thanks for raising this here. I s

[Fedora-legal-list] intel-media-driver-free waiting for legal review

Hey folks, Can we please get some movement on intel-media-driver-free[1]? It's been waiting for approval for almost half a year now. This package is intended to replace the existing libva-intel-hybrid-driver package we already have and will enable access to AV1 hardware encoding on DG2/Intel Arc G

  1   2   >