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

On 11/23/2010 08:36 AM, Ben Boeckel wrote: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:02:32AM -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >> On 11/21/2010 10:21 AM, lakshminaras2...@gmail.com wrote: >>> There is no explicit disclaimer in the source package. >> >> Please send the upstream copyright holder/author this messa

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] visualvm multi licensing

On 11/23/2010 10:04 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: > I am doing review of old/new package - visualvm [1]. It used to be part > of openjdk until recently. > > spec file contains multiple source tarballs. > * netbeans-profiler-visualvm_release69.tar.gz contains dual-licensed > files (GPLv2 with cla

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Can i use Fedora

On 11/27/2010 05:37 AM, kiran wrote: > Dear Sir, > > Can I download the fedora and use it in my office or commercial purpose > without buying any licence or paying anything. The short answer here is yes. Thanks, ~tom == Fedora Project ___ legal maili

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

On 11/30/2010 12:39 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote: > Based on that, the package would be acceptable with a License tag of > GPLv3. Very odd, but I agree with this conclusion. Go ahead and use it only under the GPLv3+ terms and mark the package accordingly. ~tom == Fedora Project _

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Crafty chess program license

On 09/24/2010 01:29 AM, Lukas Zapletal wrote: > Tom that would be great. The author seems to be very open and he said > he wants only to defend the software against companies that are trying > to sell it. > > Its wonderful piece of software and it would be nice to have it in Fedora. Following up

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] jogl licensing

On 12/14/2010 09:57 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > 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 year

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Advice to choose a license

On 12/21/2010 07:18 PM, gia...@gmail.com wrote: > I'm writing some new code for a PHP project I'd like to license with a > permissive license, BSD or MIT. In the wiki I found a lot of variants, > can anyone advice me which one would be better to use? > > Bonus points for a short one, as I'm going

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Lightspark

On 01/08/2011 01:37 AM, gatlin sullivan wrote: > Lightspark is packaged at rpm-fusion. Is there a legal exception to it > being held in Fedora's official repositories? It depends on ffmpeg, which is why it is in rpmfusion. ~tom == Fedora Project ___ le

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

On 01/13/2011 04:41 AM, Shakthi Kannan wrote: > Hi, > > Could you please let me know if the license (Section 1.4) mentioned in > the specification document, "C Library ABI for ARM Architecture" [1] > an acceptable one for Fedora? This license isn't free, which normally would not be an issue with

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Documentation and header files seemingly without a license

On 01/13/2011 04:17 PM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote: > 1. All other relevant source files have a license header except > include/bitcask.hrl and c_src/erl_nif_compat.h. I'm not sure if they > constitute a "work" in terms of copyright and should have licenses. What > do you think? I think those files

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

On 01/13/2011 09:42 PM, Shakthi Kannan wrote: > What about code that complies with the specification? Is it > permissible to distribute the same within the Fedora distribution? The license says: Notwithstanding the foregoing, “Specification” shall not include (i) the implementation of other

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Documentation and header files seemingly without a license

On 01/16/2011 06:10 AM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote: >> Also he kindly >> > granted us permission to redistribute doc-file freely w/o >> > modifications. I hope that it's ok for content. > I would like to get a confirmation from someone that this is OK in > Fedora before accepting the package. Docume

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] PublicDomain license: MonadCatchIO-mtl Haskell package

On 01/20/2011 12:20 PM, Shakthi Kannan wrote: > Please let me know as to how we can proceed further? I'm not sure that there is an easy way to proceed further. You'd need to identify the copyright holders of all of the snippets used in the MonadCatchIO-mtl code and confirm the licensing with each

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Forced copyright assignment

On 01/21/2011 09:39 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Is it remotely valid for them to claim copyright without any formal > copyright assignment documents being exchanged? I suppose this depends > on what "submit" means, but it sure sounds as if they claim that you > hand over your copyright just

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Public domain works in Russia

On 01/27/2011 01:59 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I'm trying to determine if the LZMA SDK is properly in the public > domain. The author (Igor Pavlov) is Russian, and supposedly the work > was placed into the public domain on 2008-11-23 which I guess would mean > that the Russian Federation's

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Forced copyright assignment

On 01/28/2011 09:11 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote: > AIUI, purporting to release a work under the GPL does not oblige the > licensor to provide the source. I disagree, especially given that the licensor is claiming to be the sole copyright holder and they are distributing the work. GPLv2 ties the righ

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Forced copyright assignment

On 01/29/2011 07:14 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote: > On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 21:08 -0500, David Nalley wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Matt McCutchen >> wrote: >>> With all due respect, I don't think so... Assuming the licensor is the >>> sole copyright holder as they say, they have the exclu

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Forced copyright assignment

On 01/30/2011 09:13 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote: > I suspect that in the cases you are talking about, there is a key > difference: the work the company is distributing is a derivative work of > a GPL work copyrighted by another party, so that party can sue the > company for copyright infringement. Bu

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Forced copyright assignment

On 01/31/2011 11:23 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote: > hey say that > the copyright holder's actions never "violate" the GPL, at least with > respect to distribution and modification. This would appear consistent > with my interpretation that the distribution and modification terms are > conditions of th

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Torque License Change.

On 02/02/2011 02:58 PM, Steve Traylen wrote: > The new license claims torque is licensed both by the OpenPBS license > and this new Torque license. > The torque license v1.0 seems in isolation probably acceptable and includes > the acknowledgement from the old license. Well, no. The v1.0 license i

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] What does "independent" mean in the licensing guidelines?

On 02/04/2011 03:35 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > but a non-native speaker > of English wanted to know if "GPLv2+" and "GPLv3+" are independent and I > realized that I've no idea at all what that really means. Well, they're independent in the situation you describe, because they're in play on

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] license for Life Lexicon included in golly

On 02/07/2011 02:03 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > I have been unable to contact Mr. Silver. However, I posted to the > golly-test mailing list, and got the reply below from Tom Rokicki, one > of the golly authors. Is this satisfactory? I suspect that it is not, > but I'd like to have a semi-official

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] License header of some KDE applications

On 02/07/2011 03:52 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > Maybe it's only > practical for Fedora to label this as "GPLv2 or GPLv3", and if in the > distant future the KDE organization also approved GPLv4 the license > tag could just be updated accordingly (much like any special license > change might be tre

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] License header of some KDE applications

On 02/07/2011 04:06 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 03:59:12PM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote: >> On 02/07/2011 03:52 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: >>> Maybe it's only >>> practical for Fedora to label this as "GPLv2 or GPLv3", and if in t

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] License header of some KDE applications

On 02/07/2011 05:49 PM, Julian Aloofi wrote: > Oh, and before burying this thread: Wouldn't it would make sense to put > out an announcement on the devel and kde list for maintainers to check > whether their application includes such a license header? > I've only found it in yakuake and amarok (src

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] possible ettercap license issue.

On 02/08/2011 12:40 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > The comment strikes me as a GPL incompatibility. (License is GPLv2+) > > Should anything be done about this ? > > (The obfuscated code seems to check a date, and print a message asking you > to send birthday wishes to the author. Cute, but annoying to

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Forced copyright assignment

On 01/21/2011 09:39 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Does this in any way impact the suitability of this package for Fedora? Coming back to this specific question, after consulting with RH Legal and the FSF, the FSF reached out to IguanaWorks and had them reword their license to clearly separate

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] openNURBS toolkit license

On 02/18/2011 09:32 AM, Jiri Kastner wrote: > hi all, > i want package openNURBS toolkit and get it to fedora, but i'm not sure > about license, which is here: > > http://www.opennurbs.org/docs.htm That's MIT. Fine for Fedora. ~tom == Fedora Project _

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [Fwd: Re: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx]]

On 02/22/2011 06:39 PM, Nick Bebout wrote: > Rudi suggested I forward this to the legal list instead of just to spot. After review with Red Hat Legal, we see no areas of concern in use of Transifex.net or its Terms of Service. Individuals with specific concerns can either send them to le...@lists

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Proper license field for GPL aggregation

On 03/12/2011 11:42 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > If a package's source is under a GPL-compatible license (say MIT), and > it links against a GPL library (say readline's GPLv3+), what should the > license field say? Maybe "MIT and GPLv3", with a comment explaining > which library pulls in

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Regarding c++ source with a separate license

On 03/12/2011 09:16 PM, lakshminaras2...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello > > I am reviewing mpdas https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=680657. > The sources are licensed under BSD license. There is one file in the > sources md5.cpp which has been authored by a different entity and has a > separat

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Regarding c++ source with a separate license

On 03/14/2011 08:31 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote: > On Mon, 2011-03-14 at 00:22 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: >> In this case, I dug out the file from the SRPM, and determined that >> the >> license on the md5.c file is "zlib", which is fine for Fedora. >> >> Li

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Proper license field for GPL aggregation

On 03/16/2011 01:13 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > Thanks, Tom. Will revert the change at the next update. In this specific > case, it does not really matter, but in cases where the package in > question can be further linked with other programs, won't it be a bit > misleading if the license i

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Providing a copy of the GPL

On 03/18/2011 02:07 AM, Ruediger Landmann wrote: > Hi all > > I'm currently reviewing[0] a package (perl-NTLM) that was originally > published under a mostly free license but with some unacceptable > restrictions (not allowed to sell it, must send the developer the diffs > of any changes). > >

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Proper license field for GPL aggregation

On 03/18/2011 11:33 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > On 03/18/2011 05:38 AM, Tom Callaway wrote: >> So, instead, we have packages track the licenses of the contents of the >> binary rpm, and we use that data to determine cross package license >> compatibility, separately

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] driverproblem

On 03/25/2011 09:31 AM, it lithe wrote: > Dear Sir/Madam, > I'm so interest & new user for "Fedora 14". I can't update & register > IRC Fadora 14. Because of I have a ZTE AX226 WiMAX USB Modem. It has > built-in Microsoft based auto run driver. But I'm failed to setup it on > "Fedora 14". I think i

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Possible incompatible licensing of audio files packaged with marave

On 03/25/2011 11:29 AM, Rex Dieter wrote: > > Per > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690658 > > marave (currently) packaged includes some sound files from several sources > with < 100% clear licensing: > > 1. some files from: > http://www.partnersinrhyme.com/pirsounds/WEB_DESIGN_SOUN

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] OpenCASCADE Licence v. 6.5

On 03/29/2011 03:15 AM, Jiri Kastner wrote: > hi, > with release 6.5 of OpenCASCADE changed license. > i noticed, that > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Open_CASCADE_Technology_Public_License > is quite old. > on http://www.opencascade.org/getocc/license/ is the new one. > can you, pleas

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] OpenCASCADE Licence v. 6.5

On 03/29/2011 01:37 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: > Tom, did you notice that they changed the first paragraph (Obliged vs. > encourage) ? Yes, but that first paragraph isn't actually in the license. It's a "summary" that is non-binding. ~tom == Fedora Project

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] question on a new license

On 03/15/2011 07:47 AM, Oxana Kurysheva wrote: > Hi, > > I want to make a package with Zimbra Desktop application > (http://www.zimbra.com/products/desktop.html). The problem is that it uses a > license called Zimbra Public License, Version 1.3 (ZPL). And ZPL is not > listed under good licenses

[Fedora-legal-list] gSOAP

Apologies for the wide distribution, but if you were waiting on me for clarification of the gSOAP licensing, please speak up. I know it was a concern, but I can't seem to find it to circle back with the results. ~tom == Fedora Project ___ legal mailing

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] "Whatever" license

On 04/16/2011 10:38 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > Is this an acceptable license for Fedora? If so, what should it be > called in the License tag in the spec file? MIT. It's a new, extremely permissive variant, but yeah, MIT. ~tom == Fedora Project ___ lega

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Use of trademarked operating system icons (eg. Windows logo) in Fedora programs

On 04/18/2011 06:42 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Thinking about this a little more, I guess that the answer might > depend upon the specifics of the logo itself. So here is a list of > the logos I would like to use and as best as I can find it the > information about trademark restrictions for

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Use of trademarked operating system icons (eg. Windows logo) in Fedora programs

On 04/19/2011 06:18 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > OK so I read a bit more about trademark law and it definitely seems to > be a killjoy, even in this case where we are literally representing > the operating systems in question. > > So let me put the question a bit differently: what logos can we

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Use of trademarked operating system icons (eg. Windows logo) in Fedora programs

On 04/20/2011 11:33 AM, Scott Dowdle wrote: > I'm guessing that that last word there was a typo... or perhaps it was a > Freudian slip? :) Yeah, that's a typo. :) > Regarding the Microsoft logo, hey Red Hat and Microsoft do have a low-key > press release-ish agreement to support each others OSe

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Use of trademarked operating system icons (eg. Windows logo) in Fedora programs

On 04/20/2011 11:29 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Our thinking has moved on a little bit though: What we propose to do > now is to grab existing icons from the guests themselves. For example > if it was a Fedora guest we'd grab > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps/fedora-logo-icon.png out of th

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Usage of auto translate

On 05/08/2011 10:54 PM, noriko wrote: > Doesn't it violate any copy right at all, if entire guide or some part > of a guide or a full sentence in a guide uses precisely exact copy of > the auto translated string(s)? Can we safely utilize this function in full? Copyright is less of an issue here,

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Usage of the Fedora logo on Mono's download info site

On 04/27/2011 04:08 PM, Timur Kristóf wrote: > So, if we got such a page, clicking on the Fedora logo would allow the > user to get information about how to install Mono on Fedora. > I think this fits into > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Trademark_guidelines#Usage_That_Does_Not_Require_Perm

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Credit loss in Fedora translation files

On 05/10/2011 01:12 AM, Runa Bhattacharjee wrote: > Hello, > > Translation files submitted via http://fedora.transifex.net removes all > information related to the copyright of the content as well as the names of > the > previous translators. As far as I can understand, the translated content for

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Are Yahoo Weather's terms of use okay for a Fedora package?

On 05/16/2011 07:15 AM, Timur Kristóf wrote: > Hi, > > We are working on a Gnome shell extension that will be able to display > weather information. > > We are thinking of two possible sources for weather information: > - libgweather > - yahoo > > The reason why we're considering yahoo is becau

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Question about BSD style license

On 05/15/2011 03:18 PM, Sergio Belkin wrote: > So, we agree that both cyrus-sasl and UpTools has neither BSD nor "BSD > with advertising". "BSD with attribution" does not exist by now. Could > "BSD with attribution" be appended to the list mentioned in > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] ssh enable and firewall open for sshd connection by default after install who's legally liable?.

On 05/19/2011 11:27 AM, Ciaran Farrell wrote: > It seems that he is basing his analysis on a negligence claim rather > than on a contract claim. The real issue would therefore be whether the > distributor owes a duty to the user - which in turn draws in issues of > foreseeability. You have to imag

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] ssh enable and firewall open for sshd connection by default after install who's legally liable?.

On 05/19/2011 12:09 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > Perhaps we need a wiki page that clarifies what legal rights Fedora > users/representatives have. It wouldn't mean anything, to be blunt. If you're worried about that, consult your own counsel. I'd rather not have people believe me (IANAL)

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Use of Fedora icons

On 05/18/2011 12:06 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Hi, > > We are developing an Eclipse plug-in [1], which uses a few icons/logos > related to Fedora. In particular, we are using the Fedora icon in a > context menu item of our tool (see screenshot at [2]). We are wondering > if this is OK, or if we

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] LGPLv2+ statement

On 05/26/2011 10:11 AM, Jaromir Capik wrote: > Hi. > > I'd like to know if the following statement can be considered a LGPLv2+. > I somehow cannot find the LGPLv2+ template. > I found just LGPLv2 templates which differ a bit and since I'm unsure > what the extra plus sign means, I considered it a

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] GPL and additional restrictions

On 06/02/2011 11:11 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote: > What is more galling to me in that case is that the license falsely > refers to 1(b) as an exception, as if to make it seem more benign than > it is. An exception is by definition an additional permission that > distributors are allowed to remove (e.

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Patents on Elliptic Curve Cryptography

On 06/02/2011 02:23 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote: > As usual in these cases, there's a lot of uncertainty around the ECC > patents and few people are willing to publicly discuss the problem. Can > anyone help shred some light? Please do not continue this thread. Speculation on patents is inappropri

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] license question: glulxe

On 06/03/2011 04:12 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote: > On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 13:43 -0600, Ken Dreyer wrote: >> Most of the software in the package is GPL. However, one dependency >> (glulxe) has some terms that I am not sure about. Is the glulxe >> license acceptable in Fedora? I've pasted it below. >> >>

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] DSDP license

On 06/07/2011 01:34 PM, Jerry James wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jerry James wrote: >> DSDP (http://www.mcs.anl.gov/hs/software/DSDP/) has the following >> license. It appears to me to be substantially similar to an MIT >> license, but IANAL. What should I call this? > > I'm not bei

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] eGenix public license 1.1.0

On 05/24/2011 02:56 PM, Steve Traylen wrote: > Hi, > > As part of python26-numpy review > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619355 > > a "new" license cropped up. > > eGenix public license 1.1.0 > > http://www.egenix.com/products/eGenix.com-Public-License-1.1.0.pdf > > It claims

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] DSDP license

On 06/07/2011 02:28 PM, Jerry James wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: >> We're working on this. This is (somewhat sadly, I have sometimes >> thought) a low-traffic list, so nothing posted here really escapes >> notice. :) >> >> - RF > > Heh. Okay, thanks. I see To

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] license question: glulxe

On 06/07/2011 05:21 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote: > Any updates? > > Please let me know if I need to block FE-LEGAL on > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/682544 to keep this in the queue. No updates yet, sorry, but it has not been forgotten. ~tom == Fedora Project ___

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] linuxsampler Licensing question

On 06/08/2011 02:27 AM, Brian Monroe wrote: > I was looking at the Audio Creation SIG wiki and noticed that > linuxsampler was a program that was listed on there slated > for implementation. After reviewing the website it looked like the > program had a Commercial exemption for hardware and softwar

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Use of Fedora icons in Eclipse

On 06/08/2011 02:23 PM, Minoo Ziaei wrote: > Hi, > > We are developing an Eclipse plug-in [1], which uses an icon > related to Fedora on the Welcome screen in Eclipse [2]. > We are wondering if this is OK, or if we would need to remove the icon. > Previously, we had received permission for this p

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Embaroed Coutries

On 06/19/2011 08:33 AM, Frank Murphy wrote: > Iraq, Afghanistan, appear not to be included. > Are they ok for Freemedia? > > http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora > Export Regulations (accessed 18th June 2011 13:30 gmt) The list is accurate as updated. So, yes. ~tom == Fedora Project _

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] btanks license exception question

On 06/25/2011 02:57 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > I recently took over btanks and noticed that there is an exception to > the base (GPL v2) license included. Do I need to worry about this? No. It seems odd that this exception exists, since the copyright holder doesn't need this exception to do what

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] license question: glulxe

On 06/08/2011 09:46 AM, Tom Callaway wrote: > On 06/07/2011 05:21 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote: >> Any updates? >> >> Please let me know if I need to block FE-LEGAL on >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/682544 to keep this in the queue. > > No updates yet, sorry, but it has n

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Modified QPL

On 07/07/2011 11:48 AM, Jerry James wrote: > The current spec file calls this "QPL with modifications", which > rpmlint doesn't like. Should it be "QPL with exceptions", or does the > change in governing law require this to have a more complex name? Let's just call this QPL with exceptions for no

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Stardict and unspecified legal issues

On 07/09/2011 12:49 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: > Hello. > > The stardict project was recently removed from SF due to unspecified > legal issues. In fact it was moved to Google Code, which was very > surprising to me, because I can hardly imagine a legal issue valid on > SF but invalid on Google Cod

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] incorrect fsf address

On 08/05/2011 06:45 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > Hello list, > I run into rpmlint error about incorrect fsf address. My solution was > report it to upstream and left incorrect address in my packages. I > didn't block review of new packages because of it. > Some maintainers are blocking reviews an

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Do I need to remove this from the source tarball

On 08/12/2011 02:48 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > The GMT source tarball includes some non-GPL compatible code that I've > attached here. It is not compiled in unless you specify > --enable-triangle. My question is, do I have to pull this from source > tarball to avoid shipping it in the src.rpm? Th

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Tanukiwrapper license

On 08/15/2011 03:28 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > I would say (but IANAL) that best solution is to release it under GPLv2 > *and* MIT license and state that all files are licensed under GPLv2, but > files foo and directory bar, which are licensed under MIT (Leif can you > state which parts are under

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Licensing question

On 09/08/2011 07:15 AM, Juan Orti Alcaine wrote: > Hello, I would like to package the software gogoc, a client to connect > to a IPv6 tunnel broker, but I have some doubts about its licensing. > > The text of the license is pasted below. I see in the licensing > guidelines that "distributable" is

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Question on config files

On 09/22/2011 09:52 AM, Christopher Svanefalk wrote: > I am sorry if this question perhaps has an obvious answer, but I just > wanted to make sure: do config files (such as /etc/selinux/config and > /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo) fall under the restrictions of the > licenses governing the programs

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Bunling differently-licensed code for unit tests

On 09/23/2011 03:07 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > Is PHP_CompatInfo considered a derived work of PHP because it includes a > file from the PHP source code in its unit tests? Should the upstream > author be concerned about renaming his module, or asking for permission > to the PHP group? If he gets a

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Copyright requests

On 09/26/2011 08:36 PM, Jonathan Schuett wrote: > My name is Jonathan Schuett. i am planning on making a demonstration > video about fedora in my class to showcase the many benefits of fedora > over windows. I am requesting to use fedora's likeness, screengrabs, and > the fedora logo in my video. I

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Regarding presence of license information in source files

On 10/15/2011 02:03 AM, lakshminaras2...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello, > > Is it mandatory for all the source code files in a package to have > license information explicitly mentioned in each of them? For instance, > in a package there is a LICENSE file containing the license text. > However the na

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Is the Dxflib license free?

On 10/17/2011 03:07 PM, Volker Fröhlich wrote: > The headers in the various file mention GPLv2. With all the rubble in the > license, around mentioning it was GPLv2, is this certainly free software? No, this license mess is non-free. In it, it says: "and the GPL-based source code must be made av

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] IDEA patent expiration?

On 10/19/2011 07:52 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> We explicitly exclude the "International Data Encryption Algorithm" >> (IDEA) in a few Fedora packages (bouncycastle, opengpg, ?) due to its >> patent issues. Recently it occurred

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Haskell Report License

On 10/22/2011 05:05 AM, Jens Petersen wrote: > Hi, > > I want to add http://hackage.haskell.org/package/random (ghc-random) to > Fedora. > > The attached LICENSE file says that parts of the code are BSD, > and some are taken from the Haskell 98 Language Report, with > the following license: > >

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Haskell Report License

On 10/27/2011 03:22 AM, Jens Petersen wrote: >>> Can this license be added to the list of Fedora approved licenses? >> >> Sure, it is added to the Good list as a Free and GPL-compatible license. >> Use >> License: Haskell98 > > Thanks! > > So presumbly the combined license would be "BSD and Haske

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] diffmark license

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/27/2011 10:22 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: > I'd like to package `diffmark' (http://www.mangrove.cz/diffmark/). > The source tar ball > containts > following COPYING file: > >> 1. you can do what

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Is the Dxflib license free?

On 10/30/2011 04:35 PM, Volker Fröhlich wrote: > The sentence you quoted, tries to briefly explain the GPL, and obviously > fails > to do so accurately. Though they state before, the GPLv2 applies. > > I'm curious: Would you regard it free if this sentence were not there? Probably not. This was

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Organization address (required for volunteer work)

On 11/07/2011 12:22 PM, John5342 wrote: > Hi. > > Tax and benefit requirements here require me to declare all work, both > paid and unpaid, and provide the full name and address of each > company, organization or person i am working for. I am volunteering > for the Fedora Project but i cannot find

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] iLBC codec sources status

On 11/23/2011 02:30 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: > *My* *question* *is* - can we at least stop stripping of iLBC sources > from packages? I will definitely ask FESCo later which is in charge of > making technical decisions regarding unbundling libraries, however > before asking technical questions I'd

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Suprem4 Stanford license clarification

On 11/30/2011 06:35 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > Your assumption is correct. Non-free and therefore not permissible in Fedora. Yep. As usual, Josh speaks the truth. :) ~tom == Fedora Project ___ legal mailing list legal@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admi

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] RubyGems licensing while move to Ruby 1.9.3

On 12/01/2011 08:51 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Hi, > > I am preparing Ruby 1.9.3 for Fedora 17 and I came to interesting > license question. Ruby was always double licensed, i.e. Ruby and GPLv2. > However, Ruby 1.9.3 is going to be licensed under Ruby and BSD license. > The interesting part is, t

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] are copyright headers for all source files required?

On 12/11/2011 08:13 PM, Rex Dieter wrote: > In other words, say there are a small number of source files in a packaged > (tarball) work that lack any or clear copyright header, should that be > considered a review blocker? > > IANAL and being a generally pragmatic fellow, I'd hoped that we could

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] possibly MIT license

On 12/13/2011 06:14 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > Hello list, > I'm trying package perl-Wx-Scintilla, which has lot of problems. But at > the moment I'd like to solve license. The main package is licensed "same > as Perl". Two files are under wxWindows, which is the same as wxWidgets > license. Bu

[Fedora-legal-list] A change in Fedora's policy regarding Public Domain

In consultation with Red Hat Legal and the Fedora Board, I have implemented a chance to Fedora's policy regarding software marked as being in the Public Domain. The new policy is as follows: * Works which are clearly marked as being in the Public Domain, and for which no evidence is known to

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Chrome and VB?

On 12/18/2011 04:46 AM, Christopher Svanefalk wrote: > Dear all, > > I have been surprised that - despite their prominence - projects like > VirtualBox and Chrome (the open source version, built directly from > Chromium) have not been packaged for Fedora. I might be interested in > doing this, and

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Chrome and VB?

On 12/19/2011 05:09 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote: > The debian chromium package uses system libraries (including ffmpeg). > You could take a look at the debian/rules file in the package to see > how that's done, and possibly use that to create a fedora port: > http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/chromium-

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal opinion on license for EQP

On 01/03/2012 04:35 PM, John C. Peterson wrote: > "But it has obtained several interesting results, and we have decided > to make it available (including the source code) to everyone, with no > restrictions (and of course no warranty)." > > The page itself is here: http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/eq

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] (no subject)

On 01/08/2012 06:56 AM, Cvetomir Georg wrote: > We've given this a lot of thought, and the answer is 42. ~tom == Fedora Project ___ legal mailing list legal@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] IDEA patent expiration?

On 01/13/2012 12:01 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > Hi, is there any update? We now passed the most conservative possible > expiration date listed in wikipedia (2012-01-07). Can we consider this > safe now? Nope. This issue is still under review. ~tom == Fedora Project ___

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] iozone license

On 01/18/2012 03:07 AM, Dan Horák wrote: > I think the right to modify the code is missing (only the author can > distribute modified code in the second sentence) making it non-free as a > whole. This is correct. The iozone license is non-free, I spent sometime trying to convince the upstream to u

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] dt (data test tool) license

On 01/18/2012 04:22 AM, Jiri Kastner wrote: > hi, > dt tool license is mit-like (see bellow)? > > thanks > jiri kastner > > >COPYRIGHT (c) 1990 - 2007 > This Software Provided >

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] packaging pregenerated kdelibs-apidocs

On 01/26/2012 03:30 PM, Rex Dieter wrote: > For reference, > 235M kdelibs-apidocs-4.7.4-1.fc16.noarch.rpm Maybe this is a silly question, but is this package really valuable? Does anyone really want 235MB of apidocs, especially given the legal complexity/concerns, and the availability of these doc

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] packaging pregenerated kdelibs-apidocs

On 01/27/2012 08:59 AM, Rex Dieter wrote: > On 01/26/2012 03:40 PM, Tom Callaway wrote: >> The simplest way to fix this would be to amend the kdelibs license to >> say something like: >> >>As an exception to the LGPL, documentation generated from this >&g

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] opinion on libmysqlclient derivatives work

On 01/29/2012 03:00 PM, Haïkel Guémar wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed that many wrappers over libmysqlclient are distributed under > BSD 3c (or alike): > * dolphin-connector: BSD 3c > * soci-mysql: Boost > * poco-mysql: Boost > > Though, the FOSS exception[1] applies, it may mislead users into > think

  1   2   3   4   5   >