gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.legal

[Fedora-legal-list] php-channel-* licence

Remi Collet — 2012-05-18T17:30:56

Hi,

php-channel-* packages only provides 1 repository configuration file 
which is available from web, ex:

http://pear.phpqatools.org/channel.xml

For now License is often taken from the packages provided.

Ex php-channel-phpunit is "BSD" because all packages provided in the 
phpunit channel are BSD.

Some are "Public Domain"
Ex : php-channel-horde, because provided packages are released  under 
various licenses (BSD, MIT, GPL, ...).

Shouldn't all the php-channel-* set as "Public Domain" ?
In this case, I will add a small note in the PHP Guildelines.


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

[Fedora-legal-list] Mixing BSD and Apache licenses for specific arch in jemalloc on EPEL5/ppc

Ingvar Hagelund — 2012-05-18T09:14:17

Hello, legal. I'd like some advice, please. 

I maintain the jemalloc package for Fedora and EPEL. To make it compile
on EPEL5/POWER, I need a patch for 32bit atomic operations on ppc. I
found one in the Boost library (Boost license), but some googling
discovers it actually originates from apr (Apache license). jemalloc is
distributed under the BSD license

I'm unsure on how compatible the BSD and Apache licenses are.

Could I just add the patch and a few extra lines to COPYING with %ifarch
ppc ppc64, %if 0{?rhel} == 5, mentioning the Apache license and the
patch for that platform?

Note that the patch is no longer needed in epel6 and fedora. I guess
modern versions of gcc provides the missing atomic stuff.

I have contacted jemalloc upstream. Their comments suggest that this is
a non-issue, that is, that the code in question is too specific to be
copyrighted with a license, since the number of ways to implement atomic
operations for a specified cpu are very limited, and all the sketched
implementation examples floating around use more or less the same
algorithm.

Patch and short discussion starts here:
http://www.canonware.com/pipermail/jemalloc-discuss/2012-March/000136.html

I also contacted apr upstream. The initial commit of the code was done
by Greg Ames, http://marc.info/?t=101356337500001&r=1&w=2 . He pointed
me to the latest version, and told me to use it while adding the Apache
License, and added "I think you'll find that the Apache license is very
compatible with the BSD license."

PS: Note that Greg's initial commit preceeds the one copy-pasted into
the Boost library, so if this actually is an issue, Boost (or the Boost
maintainer in Fedora?) should check out this as well.

Ingvar


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

[Fedora-legal-list] Trademarked items in a fedora package

Johannes Lips — 2012-05-07T13:59:11

Hello,

I am in the process of packaging up a JMapViewer [1], the
JMapViewer_src.jar inside of the release zip [2] file includes a little
bing.png which is used by some functions.
I already contacted upstream and there is no problem removing those
functions altogether, since it is fairly modular. I also already removed
the png and all relevant pieces of code in accordance to this guide [3],
since I thought it is appropriate in this case.
I just wanted to know if this is unnecessary and there is no problem in
shipping this picture or if the removal is right.

I hope I didn't forget anything,

Johannes


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JMapViewer
[2]
http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/viewer/jmapviewer/releases/2011-02-19/JMapViewer.zip
[3]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Fedora-legal-list] MP3

Orcan Ogetbil — 2012-04-29T02:40:19

What is the current situation with MP3 allowance in Fedora? I thought
2012 was the year when we could -at least- have not-patent-encumbered,
free MP3 _decoding_. Can you please update us on the latest status?

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

[Fedora-legal-list] Packaging oVirt generated source

Juan Hernandez — 2012-04-23T14:50:51

Hello,

We would like to package for fedora the Data Ware House component of
oVirt, which contains parts generated using Talend Open Studio (see [1]).

This tool allows the user to define graphically some data flows and
transformations and then generates Java code. The generated Java code
states in the header that the license is LGPL and the tool itself claims
to be open source using GPL v2 (see [2]).

Is it acceptable from the legal point of view to create a Fedora package
using the generated Java code as the source?

Thanks in advance,
Juan Hernandez

[1] http://www.talend.com
[2] http://www.talend.com/download.php
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Fedora-legal-list] Making Infrastructure httpd logs public

Ian Weller — 2012-04-17T17:15:54

As part of the statistics++ project [1] it is Infrastructure's plan to
make data about visits to Fedora Project web servers public, in order to
automate the information made available on the Statistics wiki page.

The httpd logs currently contain personally-identifiable information:
the IP address the request originated from and the user agent header.

We think that at an absolute minimum we need to hash the IP address
(with a seed, obviously) and leave the user agent header as is. But we
wanted to make sure we got legal's opinion on this.

[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ianweller/statistics_plus_plus

[Fedora-legal-list] Fedora Inro/Outro Video Contest

Nitesh Narayan — 2012-04-14T07:11:35

Hi,
Fedora-Video team ([1]) wanted to organize a contest for Inro /Outro Contest whose details can be found at ([2]) . The point at which we are currently stuck is what we can give to the winners we have things such as Fedora T-shirts  in our mind as different countries has different rules .
That's why we are still not very sure , so any suggestions and help is most welcomed here .

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Video
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Videos/FedoraVideos_Contest_Intro/Outro

The contest page is yet not complete and modifications are still need to be done on the same .

Regards
Nitesh Narayan Lal
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Niteshnarayan
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Fedora-legal-list] Floodgap Free Software License: ok for Fedora?

Julian C. Dunn — 2012-03-29T23:27:23

Hi,

I'm considering packaging ttytter (a command-line Twitter client) for Fedora, and wondering if its special license is compatible with Fedora's licensing terms:

http://www.floodgap.com/software/ffsl/

Can someone give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down?

- Julian

[ Julian C. Dunn <jdunn< at >aquezada.com>          * Sorry, I'm    ]
[ WWW: http://www.juliandunn.net/              * only Web 1.0  ]
[ gopher://sdf.org/1/users/keymaker/           * compliant!    ]
[ PGP: 91B3 7A9D 683C 7C16 715F 442C 6065 D533 FDC2 05B9       ]

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

[Fedora-legal-list] Concern about the Clementine music playerapplication

Ryan Farmer — 2012-03-22T03:27:40

Hello,

I have some concerns about the Clementine music player application as 
packaged in Fedora. The concerns involve the Spotify integration feature.

The application uses Spotify's trademarks and their copyrighted logo and 
suggests that the user pull in a proprietary application called "Spotify 
Core" to use the feature. This effectively makes the feature a stub that 
pulls in proprietary software.

I'm wondering if any of this is in violation of any Fedora packaging 
guidelines for the issues I've raised.

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

[Fedora-legal-list] New License for Xdebug

Remi Collet — 2012-03-14T17:57:21

xDebug have been relicensed (don't know exactly when, it seems we have
missed that) under "The Xdebug License, version 1.01"

This seems to be a "BSD style"
(and referenced as on http://pecl.php.net/package/xdebug/2.2.0RC1)

The License also says "Based on "The PHP License", version 3.0"

I think this license is OpenSource (and BSD like)

Can you please confirm, and add it to the "good license list", which
seems required to update this package (else we'll have to remove
php-pecl-xdebug from the repository)


Here is the full LICENSE text
https://raw.github.com/derickr/xdebug/master/LICENSE



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

[Fedora-legal-list] Liberation Font into an ePub

Giovanni Venturi — 2012-03-08T16:08:04

Hello,
I'd like to sell my e-book done in ePub format, so this means I will  
distribuite the font into the e-book it self. You can simple unzip an  
ePub file and recoved text, cover image and fonts, so, in this case,  
Liberation Serif fonts.
I read the license here:
https://fedorahosted.org/liberation-fonts/

but I didn't understand exactly If I can use the Liberation fonts into  
the ePub file and I can sell my ePub e-book. If I need a special  
request to Red Hat or not. I wrote them and they told me to ask here  
so I did.

Is enough to specify in the copyright e-book page that I used  
Liberation fonts freely donwloadable from  
https://fedorahosted.org/liberation-fonts/ or it's not needed because  
information are into the file itself?

If I do (on my Linux system):

otfinfo -i /usr/share/fonts/TTF/LiberationSerif-Regular.ttf

I get:

Family:              Liberation Serif
Subfamily:           Regular
Full name:           Liberation Serif
PostScript name:     LiberationSerif
Version:             Version 1.07.1
Unique ID:           Ascender - Liberation Serif
Designer:            Steve Matteson
Designer URL:        http://www.ascendercorp.com/typedesigners.html
Manufacturer:        Ascender Corporation
Vendor URL:          http://www.ascendercorp.com/
Trademark:           Liberation is a trademark of Red Hat, Inc.  
registered in U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office and certain other jurisdictions.
Copyright:           Copyright (c) 2007 Red Hat, Inc. All rights  
reserved. LIBERATION is
a trademark of Red Hat, Inc.
License URL:          
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/LiberationFontLicense
License Description: Licensed under the Liberation Fonts license, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/LiberationFontLicense
Vendor ID:           1ASC


I get all information I need on the font from the font file it self.  
If you need more specific information let me know.
Have a nice day,
Giovanni
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Fedora-legal-list] Privacy Policy Concern

inode0 — 2012-03-08T06:35:44

Hi all,

The following describes the policy for information controlled by the
privacy flag in FAS.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:PrivacyPolicy#Publicly_Available_Personal_Information

It appears to me that the IRC nickname if provided in FAS is also
treated as public information in various places now regardless of the
privacy settings. If I log into FAS and look at another user who has
the privacy flag set I can see the IRC nickname, if I query the fas
plugin to zodbot I also see the user's IRC nickname.

I do think the IRC nickname should be considered public information if
provided (and especially for users with fedora cloaks) so I'm
wondering if the privacy policy should just add this as a second
exception along with the email address listed in the current policy?

I also have a question about what the "your affiliations" in the last
bullet in that section refers to?

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

[Fedora-legal-list] Fw: Re: Letter to Legal

Tomas Radej — 2012-02-28T15:57:09

Hello,

I would like to ask for your consent with me making a particular license-checking program as a thesis assignment. This program would be about to be deployed in production, mostly in Fedora package reviewing, or for the use of individual developers outside Fedora. The problem is that the information obtained by usage of the program or disclosing obtained data could be harmful towards Fedora. Please read on for details.

The assignment is to invent a tool that:

- searches a software project (for the purpose of the thesis, only a Java software project, but more language-specific modules are intended in the future)
- determines the project's license (the means of doing that, beyond checking the license header, are to be invented)
- reports any problems or license incompatibilities found (mostly as warnings, I expect most of the checks to be based on heuristics)
- stores data in a publicly available database to speed up the process and share information, taking into consideration different builds of packages, different versions etc.

The assignment also requires devising a way to manage the database, user contributions, credibility of such etc.

It is to be noted that even though checking the compliance with Fedora licensing is a duty of every reviewer, my experience shows that it is beyond a standard package reviewer to see problems such as copy/pasted code, several classes taken from a different project with a different license (when a header is missing) etc. The aim of this program would be to help mainly with these problems as they often go unnoticed even now.

The problem is that for a successful defense of the thesis, it would be necessary (admittedly not vital) to publish the source code of the program and probably the database properties as well. I am aware that disclosing the data accumulated while checking projects in Fedora could have potentially devastating consequences, therefore I would only publish the source code of the program and bindings to a database system, which a user would need to run separately from Fedora, thus not revealing the internal data to the public. My thesis advisor deemed this idea to be satisfactory for the academia.

What I would like to ask you is if you too consider the execution of this project to be safe enough to be done and not threaten Fedora, e. g. by pointing out unnoticed licensing issues to a malefactor.

Thank you, Tomas Radej
FAS: tradej

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

[Fedora-legal-list] Licensing Tool (diploma thesis)

Tomas Radej — 2012-02-28T16:00:00

Hello,

The assignment is to invent a tool that:

The assignment also requires devising a way to manage the database, user contributions, credibility of such etc.

Thank you, Tomas Radej
FAS: tradej

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

[Fedora-legal-list] python-virtualenvwrapper licensing

RJ Bean — 2012-02-28T03:58:20

I'm thinking about packaging python-virtualenvwrapper for use with moksha 2.0.
It has a permissive but non-standard license:

   http://www.doughellmann.com/projects/virtualenvwrapper/#license

Is this compatible with Fedora guidelines?  If so, what should I use for the
License: field?

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

[Fedora-legal-list] *GPL ... approaching 1990s?

Matěj Cepl — 2012-02-27T00:10:09

Hi,

I was contemplating to use LGPL for a small project of mine (in the end 
I've decided otherwise for other reasons) but I was again struck by the 
sheer nonsense of attaching 481 lines long COPYING.LGPL to 194 lines 
long script. Would there be anything wrong with replacing the standard 
LGPL copyright blurb with this acknowledging an existence of the Internet?

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.

A copy of the full GNU Lesser General Public License is
available at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses\
/lgpl-2.1.html (or some better URL).

Best,

Matěj

[Fedora-legal-list] DTrace for Linux

Carsten Mattner — 2012-02-24T18:29:46

Hi Fedora legal,

the code mentioned by Elena is not yet available in the git repo,
but there seems to be earlier code there.

https://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=2351031&tstart=0

http://oss.oracle.com/git/?p=linux-2.6-dtrace-modules-beta.git;a=summary
http://oss.oracle.com/git/?p=linux-2.6-dtrace-unbreakable-beta.git;a=summary

In both repositories there's a commit titled "Finish GPL/CDDL splitting work".
It seems to me that Oracle plans to at least make the kernel part GPL, and
thereby increase the chances of merging this upstream.

Did anybody from Fedora legal take a look or consider including that in
a future release?
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Fedora-legal-list] How to specify license? CCDL or GPLv2 or ASL2.0?

Juan Hernandez — 2012-02-24T12:07:28

Hello,

I came accross the attached header in the source files for a package I
am working on. What is the correct license tag for that? I guess that it
should be "CDDL or GPLv2 or ASL 2.0". Is that correct?

Thanks in advance,
Juan Hernandez
/*
 * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS HEADER.
 *
 * Copyright 1997-2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
 *
 * The contents of this file are subject to the terms of either the GNU
 * General Public License Version 2 only ("GPL") or the Common Development
 * and Distribution License("CDDL") (collectively, the "License").  You
 * may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You can obtain
 * a copy of the License at https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL.html
 * or glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt.  See the License for the specific
 * language governing permissions and limitations under the License.
 *
 * When distributing the software, include this License Header Notice in each
 * file and include the License file at glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt.
 * Sun designates this particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception
 * as provided by Sun in the GPL Version 2 section of the License file that
 * accompanied this code.  If applicable, add the following below the License
 * Header, with the fields enclosed by brackets [] replaced by your own
 * identifying information: "Portions Copyrighted [year]
 * [name of copyright owner]"
 *
 * Contributor(s):
 *
 * If you wish your version of this file to be governed by only the CDDL or
 * only the GPL Version 2, indicate your decision by adding "[Contributor]
 * elects to include this software in this distribution under the [CDDL or GPL
 * Version 2] license."  If you don't indicate a single choice of license, a
 * recipient has the option to distribute your version of this file under
 * either the CDDL, the GPL Version 2 or to extend the choice of license to
 * its licensees as provided above.  However, if you add GPL Version 2 code
 * and therefore, elected the GPL Version 2 license, then the option applies
 * only if the new code is made subject to such option by the copyright
 * holder.
 *
 *
 * This file incorporates work covered by the following copyright and
 * permission notice:
 *
 * Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation
 *
 * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
 * you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
 * You may obtain a copy of the License at
 *
 *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
 *
 * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
 * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
 * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
 * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
 * limitations under the License.
 */

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

[Fedora-legal-list] Comments on draft trademark guidelines regarding non-software merchandise produced by the Fedora Project

inode0 — 2012-02-23T21:28:02

Hi Pam and everyone,

I'd like to give some feedback and will try my hardest to not be
negative about it.

Here is the section I'm considering and how it might affect our current work.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pchestek/TMGuidelinesDraft#Non-software_promotional_goods

One general observation is that not all non-software promotional
merchandise is designed or arranged by ambassadors. Most of the time
this work is done by ambassadors, but not always. So, if possible, I'd
like to describe these sections a bit more generally to not exclude
people who do make contributions this way who are not in the
ambassador group when they do it.

Maybe something like "Fedora Event Promotional Merchandise" rather
than "Ambassador giveaways" and having more emphasis throughout on
"contributors" rather than on "ambassadors" although we do want to be
clear that we are talking about merchandise designed and made by
members of the Fedora Project primarily or exclusively for the purpose
of distribution at Fedora events.

I think a trac instance to enter some basic information about what is
produced is fine, actually a good thing generally. Will it be visible
to the public? Can it include some additional fields that we might
desire for our own tracking and expense recording as long as it
includes the fields you need as well? I do have a few comments about
the listed fields.

Contact info for responsible ambassador <- Fine aside from preferring
contributor to ambassador.

Main event(s) where materials will be given away <- This one could be
problematic so I'd like to understand what you really need at a
minimum for this field. We have, for example, produced 20,000
temporary tattoos in a single run and distributed those worldwide.
From there they found their way (and still do) to Fedora events all
over the world over a number of years. So this list would be long and
would need updated a lot and really the original reporter (responsible
ambassador/contributor) probably isn't in a position to follow up on
where the item was used. We very seldom produce merchandise for a
specific event. Almost always it is produced in large quantities,
distributed to various geographic regions, and then finds its way on
to the events where it is needed.

Design of non-software promotional item(s) <- What does this mean? A
copy of the artwork? A proof from the vendor? A general description?

Information on vendor producing materials <- This one is easy if a URL
or basic contact info is enough.

Description of materials being used (e.g. type of tshirt, type of
coffee cup, etc) <- I'm not really sure what you want here. Just a
description of the product being made?

Amount of materials to be produced at this time in this design for
this event or events <- This is fine but the "for this event or
events" concerns me because as I said before we don't usually have a
specific list of events in mind that we are producing merchandise for
beyond any Fedora event that comes up where the item is appropriate
until we run out of it.

"If the design is simply an unmodified Fedora logo, word-mark, or
previously approved design, with nothing else, the merchandise is
appropriate, and the material type/quality is acceptable, the request
will be granted, and the Fedora Ambassador will be given a one-time
permission to produce the specified non-software promotional goods in
the amount requested."

Ok, this sounds like for this subset of cases the approval is
automatic? Or do we need something in writing from someone telling us
we can proceed? While I don't much like having to ask twice to reorder
more of an item that is popular when we run out of it, I can see some
benefit to tracking each order but would prefer to not need to wait
for permission if possible and if some fields don't really apply to
reorders noting them would ease the paperwork burden some.

"Any other request must have Board approval, and may require that the
Ambassador produce a two item proof batch of the proposed non-software
promotional goods. Please note that designs must be in compliance with
the Fedora Logo Usage Guidelines, and all requests must be made at
least one month before expected production of the non-software
promotional goods."

This part worries me some. Does it mean that each and every new item
that the project wants to produce has a bigger burden, possibly a lot
bigger burden? My radar tells me this will result in far fewer new
items getting produced which I think is undesirable. The delay this
introduces into the process is really unhelpful. I'm not sure all our
vendors would even give us binding price quotes that would allow us to
approve funding before sending the request to the Board for approval
of the trademark use. Worse, volunteers doing this will lose their
enthusiasm by this process becoming a multi-month long ordeal just to
make a new t-shirt.

I'm not clear on whether the one month delay applies to items that
will be automatically approved. If it does I really would like to
shorten that for items in that case as no one is going to want to work
on ordering some pens if that work needs to be stretched out that
long.

I do hope that most of things we produce now would fall into the
earlier category since we very often use the unmodified Fedora logo or
word-mark on items. Would it be possible to look over common Fedora
merchandise (buttons, pens, stickers, t-shirts, etc.) and tell us
which would fall into the former case and which would fall into this
latter case requiring Board approval and time delays? I'm guessing
things like t-shirts would fall into the latter more than most other
items.

And I really hope you find something in the above helpful.

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

[Fedora-legal-list] Board question regarding non-software goods.

David Nalley — 2012-02-22T22:44:34

First, my apologies for cross-posting.

Spot, Pam, et al:

At today's Board meeting[0] there was some significant backlash to the
proposed TM guidelines, specifically the non-software goods section.

The principal issue the Board would like to understand is:

What is the impact of not running requests for trademark approval for
non-software goods through the yet to be created trac instance (as is
currently the case).

e.g. is there a risk to the trademarks from the lack of documentation
of quantity, events distributed at, etc, or does this merely simplify
record keeping/keep someone from looking at the various budget
pages/meeting logs/mailing lists where these things are currently
discussed/record.

Additionally, a number of folks present at the Board meeting who are
involved in the acquisition and distribution of Fedora swag were
concerned with the additional overhead, and for clarification offered
up the following workflow that already happens:

Need for swag is discussed and agreed to by regional groups such as
FAmNA, EMEA Ambassadors, in public. Designs either generated or
proofed by Fedora Design (or are designs that have been generated or
approved in the past) and are then ordered. The bill is subsequently
paid by RHT (involving management approval of expense reports,
auditing by finance etc).

This presents the additional questions of:

* Does RHT ultimately paying (and thus at least tacitly, if not
explicitly approving of the usage) for the goods not make this TM
usage on the part of RHT and thus not needing approval?
* Is it permissible for the Board to delegate either to the various
groups within Fedora that produce swag, or perhaps to the regional
community RHT credit card holders, the ability to approve TM usage
within a well defined swag/non-software goods category.
* Despite the non-software goods section in the TM guidelines - swag
has been produced without Board approval for at least the past 4 years
- has there been a delegation of this authority already, or was
perhaps the understanding that RHT footing the bill indicated RHT
approval?

[0] http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-02-22/fedora_board.2012-02-22-18.29.log.html
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Fedora-legal-list] OpenSSH ECDSA support

Carsten Mattner — 2012-02-22T19:03:51

I've tried to search bugzilla and forums for information on ECDSA
support in the Fedora provided OpenSSH packages, but didn't find
anything conclusive.

What is the status?

I can't find the link but remember that there was talk about reversing
that decision after some investigation was finished.

If Fedora doesn't plan to ship it with ECDSA enabled, what's the
purpose of the Fedora ECC/TLS Test Server found here:
https://ecc.fedora.redhat.com/
Just curious about that site and it's relation to Fedora, if Fedora
doesn't support ECC.
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal