Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CAcert.org license
by Tom Callaway
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 23:03 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
> > >>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway <Tom> writes:
> >
> > TC> Given that it does not give permission for us to redistribute (the
> > TC> cornerstone requirement for Content licenses), this license is not
> > TC> acceptable for Fedora.
> >
> > I guess I'm glad I looked before approving the package, but I have to
> > wonder: Do the cacert folks actually want anyone to use their
> > certificates? I mean, this prevents basically everyone from using
> > them, because they can't come with the OS or the browser.
>
> Personally, the more I read the document, the more I'm confused.
>
> "You may NOT distribute certificates or root keys under this
> licence"... does this mean we can distribute under a different license?
Well, sortof. The wording here is strange because you can get a
different license from the CA issuer. We can't just pick a license, but
the CA issuer might be willing to give us a different one.
> Would it be worth getting in contact with CAcert.org in order to try
> and have them allow us to redistribute the root certs under conditions
> which are acceptable to the Fedora Project?
Probably, yes. :)
~spot
8 years, 3 months
Can anyone take a look at libva(FE-Legal)?
by Chen Lei
Hi all,
libva is a library and tools relating to the VAAPI video playback
acceleration specification.
libva is included in all major distributions(debian/ubuntu meego
opensuse mandriva gentoo etc.) . I need it as a dependecy to package
some meego MTF packages. Howerver, the submitter(Adam Williamson)
feels that i965-va-driver plugins and many other parts of libva may
have some patent issues. Are there any legal guys or developers who
are familiar with libva can help to clarify the patent issues in
libva?
The Review Request is here and waits for a legal review for almost one year:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=518546
Thanks a lot!
Regards,
Chen Lei
13 years, 9 months
Please define "effective license" (for the love of consistency)
by Orcan Ogetbil
1) I came across another review with the same license question. The
source files have one of the
GPLv2, GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ headers each. They get compiled and produce
1 final binary executable. None of the headers (or other source code
files) go to the final RPM.
What goes to the license tag of the package?
Ref: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537325#c4
2) Hypothetical question (although happens rather frequently): What if
there was a -devel subpackage and .h files with different licenses
ended up in this -devel subpackage?
Orcan
13 years, 10 months
Not sure about this license
by Zan
It isn't on the approved list, but looks a bit like a modified BSD
license to my untrained eye. It is for a piece of software called Gold,
that I would like to package for Fedora EPEL.
Could someone tell me if it would be okay, and if so what I should put
in the spec file?
Thanks
Jess
Copyright (c) 2003
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
Battelle Memorial Institute.
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
· Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
· Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
· Neither the name of the Battelle nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
13 years, 10 months
What license is this? BSD or AML?
by Ankur Sinha
hey,
What License would this be?
> Copyright (C) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> are met:
> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY APPLE INC. AND ITS CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY
> EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
> WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
> DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL APPLE INC. OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
> DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
> (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
> LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON
> ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
> (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
> SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>
The body matches the BSD 2 clause license[1], but the Copyright makes me
think it's an AML[2]. (But I'm no expert)
I haven't blocked the review request[3] with a FE-LEGAL because both
these licenses are good.
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur
[1]
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD
[2]
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Apple_MIT_License
[3]
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611010
> "webkitgtk3 - GTK+ 3 port of webkit"
13 years, 10 months
