Karel Volný | 31 Dec 12:30 2015
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] umefont license


Hi.

I'd like to package Ume-fonts[*]. Unfortunately, I cannot find appropriate 
license name in good licenses list on the wiki. I thought it is simple 
"as-is" but I cannot see such record - are my eyes just tired or is it 
really missing?

[*] https://osdn.jp/projects/ume-font/

For the full text from umefont_580.tar.xz/license.html see below.

K.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 UmeFont license (In English)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 This is common license of the UmeFont family. UmeFont family provides the
 following fonts:

     * Ume Gothic
     * Ume Gothic C4
     * Ume Gothic S4
     * Ume Gothic O5
     * Ume Gothic C5
     * Ume Gothic S5
     * Ume P Gothic
     * Ume P Gothic C4
     * Ume P Gothic S4
(Continue reading)

Mattia Verga | 11 Dec 06:47 2015
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Confusion between GPL-3.0 and GPL-3.0+

Il 10/12/2015 21:41, Josh Boyer ha scritto:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Mattia Verga
<mattia.verga@...> wrote:
>> I'm very confused on how to check if a program is GPLv3 or GPLv3+.
>>
>> Looking at gnu.org website it seems (to me) that there's no difference
>> between the two: there's only one license text
>> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt) and the declaration to insert in
>> source headers says "either version 3 of the License, or (at your option)
>> any later version" (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html)
>>
>> So how to distinguish between the two?
> I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
>
> Exactly the "or (at your option) any later version" text.  If that is
> present, the code is GPLv3+ because it grants rights to use a later
> version of the GPL.  If that text is not present, it is GPLv3.  There
> is only one instance of each version of the GPL license itself and the
> "+" moniker simply reflects the fact that the author of the code may
> have granted use of future versions of the GPL via that statement in
> the copyright/licensing text.
>
> josh
>
Thanks, this is what I thought. But what about if the package carries a 
Copyright.txt file which says "license: GPL-3"? Does it wins over source 
headers?
I'm asking because I'm in this situation while packaging "Indistarter" 
in Fedora. I'm now waiting for a clarification about the software 
author, but I would like to know what to say him for fixing this 
(Continue reading)

Mattia Verga | 10 Dec 21:30 2015
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Confusion between GPL-3.0 and GPL-3.0+

I'm very confused on how to check if a program is GPLv3 or GPLv3+.

Looking at gnu.org website it seems (to me) that there's no difference 
between the two: there's only one license text 
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt) and the declaration to insert 
in source headers says "either version 3 of the License, or (at your 
option) any later version" (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html)

So how to distinguish between the two?
Pavel Raiskup | 26 Nov 00:51 2015
Picon
Gravatar

[Fedora-legal-list] Understanding of 'Compatibility Matrix' granularity?

The GPL Compatibility Matrix [1] says statements like:

  "I want to release a project under:",
  "I want to copy code under:" and 
  "I want to use (link to) a library under:"

I found this terribly confusing.  While majority of FOSS projects have a
lot of binaries and libraries, each of them might be licensed differently.

I suggest to change that wording to:

  "I want to release a part of project (e.g. binary or library) under:"

And similarly for the remaining parts of [1] wiki page.  Sorry if I missed
some important fact.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#GPLCompatibilityMatrix

Thanks, Pavel
Jitka Plesníková | 13 Nov 13:07 2015
Picon
Gravatar

[Fedora-legal-list] perl-Unix-Mknod license

Hello,

I'm packaging CPAN module Unix::Mknod to Fedora.
I am not sure about the license below.

Is it MIT?
Could you please help me find the proper license?

Thank you,
Jitka

--

http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/PIRZYK/Unix-Mknod-0.04/lib/Unix/Mknod.pm

Copyright (c) 2005-2008 University of Illinois Board of Trustees
All rights reserved.

Developed by: Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services,
               University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
``Software''), to deal with 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:

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
(Continue reading)

Morgan Hough | 5 Nov 01:34 2015
Picon
Gravatar

[Fedora-legal-list] FreeSurfer/FSL license issues for NeuroFedora

Hi there,

We are packaging neuroimaging research tools for a new SIG. There are two packages that are very widely used that we could use some advice on. 

The first is FreeSurfer - https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/ which has this license:




I know that neurodebian packages FSL with the following header:

This package is autobuildable by the Debian buildd network as it's license imposes no restrictions on reproduction, modification, transmission or transference as long as there is no financial return (see license below).
neurodebian also started packaging FreeSurfer but it was never completed. To do so I know they removed a few tools that are mentioned as falling under a separate license (tkmedit, tksurfer, etc.). I will find out more about why they abandoned this effort as their github repository for it has been deleted. 

Thanks in advance for your time. 

Cheers,

-Morgan
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Jiří Konečný | 13 Oct 10:57 2015
Picon
Gravatar

[Fedora-legal-list] Packaging of PlayOnLinux

Hello,

I want to ask if PlayOnLinux could be packaged to Fedora. This program
has list of proprietary programs which are not downloaded but could be
installed if you give it setup.exe file.

Also it downloads Windows redistributable when user explicitly wants to
install program (which using this redist) or given redistributable. 

If this is not "legal" in terms of Fedora how it's differ from
OpenSource software which are using not-OpenSource addons? Example of
this could be https://marketplace.firefox.com .

Thank you for answers
Jirka Konecny
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Adam Samalik | 9 Oct 10:49 2015
Picon
Gravatar

[Fedora-legal-list] Logos on Fedora Developer Portal

Hi,

I would like to ask you for a feedback about using other project's logos on the Fedora Developer Portal, which is now in testing.

We use them on these three pages:

Is there any logo we should avoid using? Or would this be all right? We are planning to deploy the portal into production with Fedora 23 release.

Thank you!
Adam Samalik

--

Adam Šamalík
---------------------------
Associate Software Engineer
Red Hat
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Vladimir Rusinov | 22 Sep 22:35 2015
Gravatar

[Fedora-legal-list] LICENSE file for spec files

Hi,

I working on a project where I'd like to distribute several Fedora spec files with some local modifications (which would not make sense in Fedora).

Now, my organisation requires me to put all third-party code under third_party/ directory of the repo, along with readme file describing where it was taken from, list of local modifications and original LICENSE file.

Ok, so I go to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#License_of_Fedora_SPEC_Files where I can find that all Fedora spec files licensed under MIT.
Since I'm not sure which MIT variant do you use, I go and read FPCA which says ""MIT License" means the license identified as "Modern Style withsublicense" at <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense>."

So I go to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense to find there things like "Copyright (c) 1998, 1999, 2000 Thai Open Source Software Center Ltd" and "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be includedin all copies or substantial portions of the Software."

And I'm not sure if Thai Open Source Software Center actually has copyrights for Fedora spec files.

So, which MIT license text should I use?
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Florian Weimer | 7 Sep 12:00 2015
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Adding Red Hat product installers to EPEL

Can we add installation tools for Red Hat products to EPEL?  The
products are free software, but realistically, the tools are not usable
without a Red Hat subscription.

(This would be convenient for installation tools which themselves depend
on EPEL packages.)

--

-- 
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Christopher Meng | 20 Aug 03:28 2015
Gravatar

[Fedora-legal-list] ZPAQ

Hi,

I've been packaging ZPAQ[1] for years, and recently when I decide to
push it to Fedora I found its license had been changed from GPLv3 to
Public Domain, I'm not sure if it's acceptable for Fedora, since the
code "includes code from libdivsufsort 2.0 (C) Yuta Mori, 2003-2008,
MIT license, public domain code for AES from libtomcrypt by Tom St
Denis and public domain code for salsa20 by D. J. Bernstein."

Uh...Is it OK?

Thanks.

[1]---http://mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq.html
[2]---https://github.com/zpaq/zpaq/blob/master/zpaq.cpp#L5
[3]---https://github.com/zpaq/zpaq/blob/master/readme.txt#L28

--

-- 

Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng

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

Gmane