gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.legal

[Fedora-legal-list] Have a question about using Fedora14 for a university project and publishing the results

Harikiran Enna — 2013-05-14T05:32:36

Hi Fedora Team,

I am a student studying Masters in Computer Science at one of the
universities in Minnesota, USA. As part of a starred paper for the
university, I wanted to perform some oracle database performance tests on
fedora operating system.

For this purpose, I have downloaded Fedora 14 (free software from web ) and
installed my Oracle Database software for performing some performance
tests. I have included my test results in my paper with mention of using
Fedora 14 operating system.  My university may decide to publish the paper
and I would like to make sure that my university publishing my paper would
not conflict with Fedora 14 license agreement.

I have the following information in my system when I do "uname -a".

Linux hari 2.6.35.6-45.fc14.i686 #1 SMP Mon Oct 18 23:56:17 UTC 2010 i686
i686 i386 GNU/Linux

your suggestions would be a great help.

Thanks,
Hari
612 876 5992

[Fedora-legal-list] Which BSD variant is this? (pixz)

Richard W.M. Jones — 2013-05-08T13:49:07

License:

https://github.com/vasi/pixz/blob/master/LICENSE

Debian says it's "BSD-2-Clause":

http://ftp-master.metadata.debian.org/changelogs//main/p/pixz/pixz_1.0.2-1_copyright

It appears to be the same as this:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD?rd=Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD

except without the final paragraph.

So it's just "BSD"?

Rich.

[Fedora-legal-list] GPLv2 with exception linked with GPLv3+

Laurent Rineau — 2013-05-06T08:50:21

The openscad package from Fedora has the following COPYING file:

========================quote==============================
==============
*********************************************************************
  As a special exception, you have permission to link this program
  with the CGAL library and distribute executables, as long as you
  follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the
  software in the executable aside from CGAL.
*********************************************************************
 
                    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                       Version 2, June 1991
========================end 
quote=========================================
[and then there the text of GPLv2].

(from /usr/share/doc/openscad-2013.01.17/COPYING on Fedora 17).

The license of CGAL libraries is LGPLv3+ for some parts, and GPLv3+ for other parts. OpenSCAD 
does use the parts that are under GPLv3+.


Is the exception to GPLv2+, in the license of OpenSCAD, sufficient to make it compatible with 
the terms of the license GPLv3+? I am unsure of that.

[Fedora-legal-list] Q:Trademarked logos in zocial font.

Alec Leamas — 2013-05-05T10:41:48

As has been discussed on fedora-devel, I have an issue with the zocial 
font package. The question is if this font because of it's use of 
trademarked logos can't be used in Fedora.

Any help out there?

--alec

Links:
Font overview: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/tmp/zocial.png
Discussion on devel: 
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-May/182194.html
Review request (needing update, I know): 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956120
FPC ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/277


_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Fedora-legal-list] License clarification for xvt

Mamoru TASAKA — 2013-05-04T14:22:57

Hello:

On the review request for xfe:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150
a question was raised on the license of xvt/xvt.c in
xfe-1.34.tar.gz, which says:

/*  Copyright 1992, 1994 John Bovey, University of Kent at Canterbury.
 *
 *  Redistribution and use in source code and/or executable forms, with
 *  or without modification, are permitted provided that the following
 *  condition is met:
 *
 *  Any redistribution must retain the above copyright notice, this
 *  condition and the following disclaimer, either as part of the
 *  program source code included in the redistribution or in human-
 *  readable materials provided with the redistribution.
 *
 *  THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS".  Any express or implied
 *  warranties concerning this software are disclaimed by the copyright
 *  holder to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.  In no
 *  event shall the copyright-holder be liable for any damages of any
 *  kind, however caused and on any theory of liability, arising in any
 *  way out of the use of, or inability to use, this software.
 *
 *  -------------------------------------------------------------------
 *
 *  In other words, do not misrepresent my work as your own work, and
 *  do not sue me if it causes problems.  Feel free to do anything else
 *  you wish with it.
 */

I think this can be MIT, however I would appreciate if someone would check
the license above.

Regards,
Mamoru


_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Fedora-legal-list] nodejs-ansi usage of yoshi png file

Stanislav Ochotnicky — 2013-05-03T12:28:05

nodejs-ansi upstream tarball contains yoshi.png which is a character from
Nintendo games. It's used in one of examples to display it on a console. It's
not *really* needed and could be replaced with completely different image if
needed. 

Question is: do we have to do something about it or not? If it makes any
difference the image is *really* low quality (64x21 pixels).

[Fedora-legal-list] Inconsistent licensing

Orion Poplawski — 2013-05-03T04:06:43

I'm packaging StarCluster for Fedora 
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949371) and I'm running 
into some questions about the licensing.

README.rst and setup.py and PKG-INFO indicates LGPLv3

The only python files with a header indicate:
starcluster/progressbar.py: LGPL (v2.1 or later)
starcluster/sshutils/scp.py: LGPL (v2.1 or later)

And then of course there are the jquery bundled js libs, which are dual 
MIT and GPLv2:

./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.js: * Dual licensed under the MIT 
or GPL Version 2 licenses.
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.js: * http://jquery.org/license
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.js: * Released under the MIT, BSD, 
and GPL Licenses.
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.js: *  Released under the MIT, 
BSD, and GPL Licenses.
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.js: * Released under the MIT 
license by IOLA, December 2007.
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.js: * Released under the MIT 
license by Ole Laursen, October 2009.
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.navigate.js:Licensed under 
the MIT License ~ http://threedubmedia.googlecode.com/files/MIT-LICENSE.txt
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.navigate.js: * Dual licensed 
under the MIT (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php)
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.navigate.js: * and GPL 
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php) licenses.

So, does:

LGPLv3 and (MIT or GPLv2)

cover it?  I don't like that the (few) license headers don't match the 
other license comments.

[Fedora-legal-list] RPMFusion repos and fedora-upgrade

Rahul Sundaram — 2013-04-24T23:52:38

Hi

Fedora-upgrade script links to RPM Fusion repos.  Has this been vetted by
legal?

Rahul
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Fedora-legal-list] JTF license agreement

Rahul Sundaram — 2013-04-24T23:52:02

Hi

Is this free?

http://jtf.acm.org/license.pdf

Rahul
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Fedora-legal-list] julius licensing?

Rex Dieter — 2013-04-24T12:24:52

Had a contributor willing to start packaging,
http://julius.sourceforge.jp/en_index.php?q=index-en.html

With licensing terms:
http://julius.sourceforge.jp/LICENSE.txt

It claims to be OSI-compatible, is it?
If so, what license tag to use?

[Fedora-legal-list] License of docbook-style-xsl package

Stanislav Ochotnicky — 2013-04-23T14:50:37

I noticed that docbook-style-xsl package has License tag set to "Copyright
only". However this is the text of COPYING file:

Copyright
---------
Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Norman Walsh
Copyright (C) 2003 Jiří Kosek
Copyright (C) 2004-2007 Steve Ball
Copyright (C) 2005-2008 The DocBook Project
Copyright (C) 2011-2012 O'Reilly Media

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
files (the ``Software''), to deal in the Software without
restriction, including without limitation the rights to use,
copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following
conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Except as contained in this notice, the names of individuals
credited with contribution to this software shall not be used in
advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other
dealings in this Software without prior written authorization
from the individuals in question.

Any stylesheet derived from this Software that is publically
distributed will be identified with a different name and the
version strings in any derived Software will be changed so that
no possibility of confusion between the derived package and this
Software will exist.

Warranty
--------
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
NONINFRINGEMENT.  IN NO EVENT SHALL NORMAN WALSH OR ANY OTHER
CONTRIBUTOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY,
WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.


Is the above really considered copyright only? If so it might be nice to add it
to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:CopyrightOnly as a specific example.
Perhaps the word "shall" is cousing all of this to be copyright only? In any
way, clearing it up will help with bug reported against dblatex (which contains
modified versions of xslt stylesheets)

[Fedora-legal-list] This code may be freely used and modified forany purpose

Miro Hrončok — 2013-04-23T11:17:53

HI,
how can I use this in a package?

     Copyright 2001, softSurfer (www.softsurfer.com)
     This code may be freely used and modified for any purpose
     providing that this copyright notice is included with it.
     SoftSurfer makes no warranty for this code, and cannot be held
     liable for any real or imagined damage resulting from its use.
     Users of this code must verify correctness for their
     application.


Thanks a lot.

[Fedora-legal-list] perl-DBD-InterBase license

Petr Šabata — 2013-04-17T12:44:08

Dear list,

I'm reviewing perl-DBD-InterBase [1] which uses the standard Perl
license.  However, it includes the following special exception:

  You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General
  Public License or the Artistic License, as specified in the
  Perl README file, with the exception that it cannot be placed
  on a CD-ROM or similar media for commercial distribution
  without the prior approval of the author.

Is this acceptable with or even without the author's explicit
approval?

Thank you for your insight,
Petr

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951873
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Fedora-legal-list] Is this acceptable for Fedora

Remi Collet — 2013-04-16T13:56:04

Hi,

In Horde_ActiveSync extension, file headers have

 * < at >license   http://www.horde.org/licenses/gpl GPLv2
 *            NOTE: According to sec. 8 of the GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (GPL),
 *            Version 2, the distribution of the Horde_ActiveSync module
in or
 *            to the United States of America is excluded from the scope
of this
 *            license.


Is it acceptable for Fedora ?


Thanks,
Remi.
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Fedora-legal-list] Perl packages and App::FatPacker output

Florian Weimer — 2013-04-15T11:47:46

Hi,

is it conforming to Fedora licensing practices to bundle
App::FatPacker output in Perl SRPMs, without rebuilding it
from the original sources?

Obviously, this is maintenance hazard, but if it is not
acceptable licensing-wise as well, this might help to cut
the discussion short. 8-)

Thanks,
Florian

[Fedora-legal-list] [WTF] openerp: can a license look like this(#2)?

Alec Leamas — 2013-04-09T22:37:36

Hi all!

Need som help with openerp 7.0: Here are (in my eyes) strange licenses.

First one below.  What's the effective license here? (LGPL 2.1+ and AGPL 
3.0+)?  Is this kind of relicensing OK?



    ##########################################################################
    #
    # Portions of this file are under the following copyright and license:
    #
    #
    #   Copyright (c) 2003-2004 Danny Brewer
    #   d29583-O5rBMb9VxwnJ7w+XGBqvHA< at >public.gmane.org
    #
    #   This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
    #   modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
    #   License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
    #   version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
    #
    #   This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    #   but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    #   MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
    #   Lesser General Public License for more details.
    #
    #   You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
    #   License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software
    #   Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA
      02110-1301 USA
    #
    #   See:  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html
    #
    #
    # and other portions are under the following copyright and license:
    #
    #
    #    OpenERP, Open Source Management Solution>..
    #    Copyright (C) 2004-2010 OpenERP SA (<http://openerp.com>).
    #
    #    This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or
    modify
    #    it under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as
    published by
    #    the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
    #    (at your option) any later version.
    #
    #    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    #    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    #    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
    #    GNU Affero General Public License for more details.
    #
    #    You should have received a copy of the GNU Affero General
    Public License
    #    along with this program.  If not, see
    <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
    #
    #
    ##############################################################################


_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Fedora-legal-list] [WTF] openerp: what's this license (#1)?

Alec Leamas — 2013-04-09T22:27:03

openerp 7.0 have some files with license below. Is it possible to 
conclude an effective license for this? (AGPL 3.0+ and LGPL 2.1+)? Or is 
it just an invalid? attempt to relicense?

--alec leamas


##############################################################################
#
#    OpenERP, Open Source Management Solution
#    Copyright (C) 2004-2009 Tiny SPRL (<http://tiny.be>).
#
#    This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
#    it under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as
#    published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the
#    License, or (at your option) any later version.
#
#    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
#    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
#    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
#    GNU Affero General Public License for more details.
#
#    You should have received a copy of the GNU Affero General Public 
License
#    along with this program.  If not, see 
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
#
##############################################################################

# Copyright (C) 2005, Fabien Pinckaers, UCL, FSA
#
# This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
# modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
# License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
# version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
#
# This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
# Lesser General Public License for more details.
#
# You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
# License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software
# Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 
02110-1301 USA

_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Fedora-legal-list] Question -> Ubuntu Font License

Ralph Bean — 2013-04-03T19:43:09

A package up for review[1] contains some static resources that are
under the Ubuntu Font License[2].  According to a Fedora page[3], that
license is a derivative of the Open Font License which appears ok on
the list of acceptable Fedora licenses[4].

Is the Ubuntu Font License ok to use for Fedora packages?  If not, the
so licensed resources can be patched out.

-Ralph

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948014
[2] http://font.ubuntu.com/licence/
[3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ubuntu_fonts
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License_List
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Fedora-legal-list] Usage discrimination in Akismet (WordPressPlugin)

Jochen Schmitt — 2013-03-31T18:12:20

Hello,

I'm currently working with a own WordPress blog and have to find out, that the
WordPress plugin is only free for personal use.

In the readme.txt file you find the folllowing inforatioons:

License: GPLv2 or later

PS: You'll need an [Akismet.com API key](http://akismet.com/get/) to use it.  Keys are free for personal blogs, with paid subscriptions available for businesses and commercial sites.

The above cited sentence told be, that commercial  sites have to pay
a fee, if they wnat to use that plugin.

Becuase this violate the Fedora policy, I would like your mind
about this situation.

Best Regards:

Jochen Schmitt
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Fedora-legal-list] License question

Nick Bebout — 2013-03-28T02:13:43

http://www.conserver.com/LICENSE

This appears to be several copies of BSD-like licenses with various
copyright holders.  Should the License tag just be BSD?

nb


_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Fedora-legal-list] license of catalog subpackages

Mattia Verga — 2013-03-17T15:28:06

Hello,
I would like to package some additional catalogs for Skychart, but I 
have some questions regarding license.

As you can see on skychart download page [1], each package has more than 
one catalog inside. All of these catalogs are known to be public domain, 
but there's no license file specified either in catalogs or on original 
websites of the catalogs [2] [3]. Moreover, original catalog data is 
reworked by skychart's developer to fit the main program, so the result 
only work in skychart.

My question is: can additional catalogs subpackages be the case stated 
at 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing 
where it's not necessary to include own license? Or should I contact all 
makers of the source data from wich these catalogs are built and ask 
them the licenses?

Thank you

Mattia

[1] http://www.ap-i.net/skychart/en/download
[2] http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/
[3] http://www.astro.ku.dk/~erik/Tycho-2/
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal