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 examp

[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:             Versi

[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.fedorap

[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 pack

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

Tomas Radej — 2012-02-28T16:00:00

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 pack

[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).

B

[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 a

[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.

[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

[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