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

Hello legal folks, I would like some opinions on a license called Nagios Open Software License, used in nrdp (Review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi? id=1284132). It has "open" in the name and the preambule look good ("to deal in the Software without restriction, including wit

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

On jeudi 17 mai 2018 20:55:51 CEST Neal Gompa wrote: > > - Array (used by gcin) > > Eh, I don't know what this is. I've seen this packaqe a while ago and had to search the license too. Array is https://web.archive.org/web/20170821225607/http://www.array.com.tw:80/company/ array_license.pdf The c

[Fedora-legal-list] Fwd: CC-BY-SA-4.0

--- Begin Message --- I am currently packaging a program whose README and documentation is licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0. However, only lists CC-BY-SA as meaning version 3.0 of that licence. Is CC-BY-SA-4.0 a "good" licence according to Fedora? How m

[Fedora-legal-list] Opinion on PATENTS clause in bug 1652305

Hello, Can I have legal opinion on the PATENTS clause in bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652305 (dav1d, Videolan's AV1 decoder) Thank you. Robert-André ___ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an em

[Fedora-legal-list] The JSON License

Hello, I'm encountering a package licensed with the JSON License, which seems to be a MIT derivative with the additional clause of: « The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. » https://spdx.org/licenses/JSON What is the status of this license in Fedora? I think I recall an issue with a

[Fedora-legal-list] Patent question for davs2 - An open-source decoder of AVS2-P2/IEEE1857.4 video coding

Hello, Could we have legal opinion regarding: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1718540#c4 According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Video_Standard this standard is patented: AVS Patent Pool Management Committee In the aspect of intellectual property management, AVS establis

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Patent question for davs2 - An open-source decoder of AVS2-P2/IEEE1857.4 video coding

vices on the Internet. > > Best regards, > > Robert-André Hey guys, Any time to spare for this? Thank you, Robert-André Mauchin ___ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-le...@lists

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Patent question for davs2 - An open-source decoder of AVS2-P2/IEEE1857.4 video coding

the same mode will be adopted for > > the second generation, to charge a small amount of royalty only for the > > terminal, excluding the contents, as well as software services on the > > Internet. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Robert-André > > H

[Fedora-legal-list] Packaging firmwares

Hello, I have a review request for a firmware: Boot firmware (ATF, UEFI...) for Mellanox BlueField: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1846139 I would like some opinions on whether this is acceptable firmware. The binary contains open source code for which the license are documented,

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Packaging firmwares

On Friday, 26 June 2020 23:20:38 CEST Florian Weimer wrote: > * Robert-André Mauchin: > > I have a review request for a firmware: Boot firmware (ATF, UEFI...) for > > Mellanox BlueField: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1846139 > > > >

[Fedora-legal-list] Please give your advice in bug 1801519

Hello, Could you please take a look at bug 1801519? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801519 The package is golang-github-google-licenseclassifier. It contains the text of a large number of licenses to detect them. Some of these Licenses are good for Fedora, other not. Basically am I

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

On Friday, 24 July 2020 14:40:15 CEST Stuart D Gathman wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2020, Jason Tibbitts wrote: > > > > Are any of the following acceptable? > > > > > > > > 1) Trust the packager to do a license review, with no reviewer > > > > verification. > > > Definitely need a second opinion

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

On Friday, 24 July 2020 09:16:19 CEST 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 faced with a request > (https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1

[Fedora-legal-list] An old legal opinion seems to have been forgotten

Hello, Could legal give its opinion on this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713604 which is waiting since 2019. Tom added a comment saying he will disciss it internally but no news has been posted since then Best regards, Robert-André ___

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

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: FatFs License FatFs has being developped as

[Fedora-legal-list] BSD like license with strange wording?

Hi, The following license is lifted from a code coming from NetBSD (ftp://ftp.NetBSD.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/sjg/ ) but I cannot find exactly the text of this license anywhere else: # This file is provided in the hope that it will # be of use. There is absolutely NO WARRANTY. #

[Fedora-legal-list] Curious maybe FOSS license that I can't identify

Hello, In a review I came across this License: © Copyright 2000 UserLand Software, Inc. All Rights Reserved. © Copyright 2006-2007 Scripting News, Inc. All Rights Reserved. UserLand Software, Inc. and Scripting News, Inc. are refererred to in the following as "the Companies." This document

[Fedora-legal-list] Mesa patented codecs approval

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.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mesa/c/94ef544b3f2125912dfbff4c6ef373fe49806b52?branc

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Effective license analysis: required or not?

On 8/22/23 15:40, David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 9:30 AM Daniel P. Berrangé > wrote: On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 01:04:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > I think Richard said that he would start a thread like this, but it > hasn't happened, s

[Fedora-legal-list] SPDX short name for "Redistributable, no modification permitted" (firmware)

Hi, I'm doing a MR on an old package that contains firmware data. I wanna convert to SPDX, what is the equivalent to "Redistributable, no modification permitted" in SPDX. The license is: The files in the directory src/miniloader are provided pursuant to the following license agreement:

[Fedora-legal-list] EXIV2 BMFF Patents situation

Hello, In order to update Exiv2, we need to know if this is okay to enable BMFF support. Patents have theoretically expired and it is enabled by default in the latest version. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1979565 https://github.com/Exiv2/exiv2/issues/1679 Upstream seems to thi

[Fedora-legal-list] EXIV2 BMFF Patents situation : we need an official answer

rwise most of the modern image codecs (jp2, jxl, avif and heic) end up being unsupported by default, for no good reason, which seems a sub-optimal situation. Thank you for your time. Best regards, Robert-André Mauchin, FAS: eclipseo -- _