Eduardo Mayorga Téllez | 30 Aug 00:11 2014

[Fedora-legal-list] Ambiguous license stated by upstream

Hi,

I came into this issue while I was reviewing python-gitapi[1] in BZ. The 
author does not include a license file in the sources, and even worse, 
one can read this in the README[2] file:

<snip>
License

Copyright (c) Fredrik Håård

Do whatever you want, don't blame me. You may also use this software as 
licensed under the MIT or BSD licenses, or the more permissive license 
below:

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:

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 THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS 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.
</snip>
(Continue reading)

Christopher Meng | 28 Aug 07:45 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Is MSR-LA considered as free?

Hi,

I'm packaging z3 prover[1] from Microsfot Research and its license is MSR-LA[2].

As I never hear of that before, I'd like to request help from list to
see if it's acceptable for Fedora packaging.

Thanks.

[1]---http://z3.codeplex.com/
[2]---http://z3.codeplex.com/license
--

-- 

Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng

http://cicku.me
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Jerry James | 10 Aug 01:29 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] License field: linked libraries considered?

I maintain a package whose sources are mostly MIT (with a couple of files under a BSD license, and  one under the Boost license).  Upstream just wrote to tell me that the License field on the package is wrong, because it contains binaries that are linked with glpk, which is GPLv3.  They argue that the binary package should therefore carry a "GPLv3" license tag, unless I elect to build it without glpk support (which is optional), in which case the current License tag of "MIT and BSD and Boost" would be correct.

Is that true?  Do we consider library licenses when filling in the License tag of a package?  It would be even worse than that, really, some kind of transitive closure of all licenses on dependencies of all depths, where some licenses "taint" the consuming package's license and some don't.

I do not see an answer to this question on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines.  Thanks for any clarification.
-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Jerry James | 6 Aug 18:53 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Python license: broken link

The Python license link on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing points to http://www.python.org/2.0.1/license.html, which returns a 404.  Perhaps one of these URLs would be a suitable replacement:


Regards,
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Florian Weimer | 29 Jul 11:13 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] License tag for the minimal BSD license

What's the appropriate license tag for this license?

Copyright …

Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

It's the ISC license minus the disclaimer.  Is it still appropriate to 
use "ISC"?

BTW, I noticed that Licensing:Main on the wiki has a dead link for the 
ISC license.  The new URL seems to be:

   http://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/

--

-- 
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Jaroslav Skarvada | 18 Jul 13:57 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] axmail licensing question

Hi,

I am trying to package axmail for Fedora. It's released under GPLv2+,
but in the sources [1] there is file with the following text:

/*
 * Copyright (c) 1980 Regents of the University of California.
 * All rights reserved.
 *
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
 * provided that this notice is preserved and that due credit is given
 * to the University of California at Berkeley. The name of the University
 * may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
 * software without specific prior written permission. This software
 * is provided ``as is'' without express or implied warranty.
 */

What is it? BSD-like? Can the resulting package be released under
GPLv2+?

thanks & regards

Jaroslav

[1] http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/axmail/axmail-2.0.tar.gz
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Jaroslav Skarvada | 15 Jul 17:56 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] UROnode licensing question

Hi,

I wanted to package UROnode, it seemed to be GPLv2+ licensed amateur radio
software (mirror [1]), but I came across the following weird text in the
package (in addition to the GPLv2 text):

> URONode is free to use around the globe with the exception of:
> anywhere in or by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> anywhere in or by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
> 
> Because of their tactics, any of my software is not to be used in these two
> states. Your cooperation is appreciated..
>
> - N1URO

can be such package included in Fedora?

thanks & regards

Jaroslav

[1] http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/uronode-2.1.tar.gz
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Jitka Plesnikova | 25 Jun 12:58 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] License clarification for perl-App-s2p

Hi,

I am packaging CPAN module App::s2p to Fedora.
The license should be the standard Perl license (GPL+ or Artistic)

During review [1], the following license was found in man page of
App-s2p-1.001/script/s2p

  COPYRIGHT and LICENSE

  This program is free and open software. You may use, modify,
  distribute, and sell this program (and any modified variants) in any
  way you wish, provided you do not restrict others from doing the same.

Could you state whether the following terms are acceptable for Fedora
and what License tag should be used?

I need to update license in the RPM.

Thank you.
Jitka

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1111242
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Eric H. Christensen | 12 Jun 21:50 2014

[Fedora-legal-list] CC BY-SA 3.0 -> 4.0


Creative Commons is pushing the use of their 4.0 license (which I have no qualms with).  Has/can legal review
this new license[0] as a drop-in replacement for the 3.0 license[1] we are currently using for Fedora
Documentation (with the waiving the rights to enforce Section 4d)?  I'm unsure of any benefits or
regressions we would have (I haven't personally compared the two and IANAL).

Thanks.

[0] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
[1] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode

-- Eric

--------------------------------------------------
Eric "Sparks" Christensen

sparks <at> redhat.com - sparks <at> fedoraproject.org
097C 82C3 52DF C64A 50C2  E3A3 8076 ABDE 024B B3D1
--------------------------------------------------
Jerry James | 29 May 17:48 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] repoze.sphinx.autointerface license

I'm packaging repoze.sphinx.autointerface and have a question about
the license.  It is almost the ZPLv2.1 license, but the text
identifying the license has been deleted, as has clause 4.  Do I still
call that ZPLv2.1 in the spec file, or is something else more
appropriate?  This is the text of the license file:

License

  A copyright notice accompanies this license document that identifies
  the copyright holders.

  Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
  modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
  met:

  1.  Redistributions in source code must retain the accompanying
      copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following
      disclaimer.

  2.  Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the accompanying
      copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following
      disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided
      with the distribution.

  3.  Names of the copyright holders must not be used to endorse or
      promote products derived from this software without prior
      written permission from the copyright holders.

  4.  If any files are modified, you must cause the modified files to
      carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and
      the date of any change.

  Disclaimer

    THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS ``AS IS'' AND
    ANY EXPRESSED 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
    HOLDERS 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.

Thank you,
--

-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Jerry James | 29 May 17:43 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] ZPL links need updating

The ZPL links in the table at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
lead to a "no such results" page.  Here are some suggestions for
replacement URLs:

http://old.zope.org/Resources/License/ZPL-1.1
http://old.zope.org/Resources/License/ZPL-2.0
http://old.zope.org/Resources/License/ZPL-2.1

Regards,
--

-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

Gmane