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
(Continue reading)

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
Tim Flink | 28 May 18:22 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Including gpl3 code and how that affects other source in project

I'm working on a project that's currently gpl2+ licensed [1] and we
want to include some code from a gpl3 project [2]. This code will be an
isolated utility used to generate documentation from data contained in
other source files.

[1] https://bitbucket.org/fedoraqa/libtaskotron
[2] https://github.com/ansible/ansible

I know that if we went forward with this, the project would need to be
distributed as gpl3 but I have some questions around the specifics:

Would all the source in our project need to be re-licensed as gpl3 or is
it sufficient to have the project license as gpl3 and the existing
source files as gpl2+?

Assuming that it is possible to keep the existing gpl2+ source as
gpl2+, would it be possible to change the project license back to gpl2+
in the future if we were to remove any gpl3 code?

Thanks,

Tim
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Kalev Lember | 17 May 21:51 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Warsow Content License

Hi,

Could someone please review the attached Warsow Content License to see
if content licensed under those terms is appropriate for inclusion in
Fedora? I assume it's not, but I'd be grateful if someone could give an
authoritative answer.

Thanks in advance,
Kalev
Brief Explanation of the licenses

Read this paragraph if you want to have a quick overview of the licensing used by Warsow.
For players:

The first goal of our team is to make a free game for players. This means you will not have to pay for the game,
nor pay a monthly cost. You can install our software on many PC as you like, play it as much as you want.

You cannot sell the client/server or gain any profit from it.
For developers:

Code is under GPL license, this means you can get all our source code, study it and reuse it as soon as you keep
it open and give back to us your changes.

All artwork, musics, dialogues, stories, names, 3d models, etc... are under a proprietary license. This
means you cannot reuse those in any way. If you plan to create another game based on our source code,
remember you will have to redo all art,music,models,stories,etc...

A detailed explanation of the licenses follows.
(Continue reading)

Orion Poplawski | 6 May 20:00 2014

[Fedora-legal-list] JBIG2

Is JBIG2 software allowed in Fedora?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JBIG2#Patents

There is already jbig2dec, and we're looking at:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094417 levigo-jbig2-imageio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094415 jai-imageio-core-standalone

--

-- 
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager                     303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office             FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane                       orion <at> nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301                   http://www.nwra.com
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Remi Collet | 16 Mar 08:40 2014

[Fedora-legal-list] Is such restriction acceptable

Hi,

Reviewing an old package [1] , I notice the LICENSE text (BSD-3) from
the headers [2] includes:

This code cannot simply be copied and put under the GNU Public License
or any other GPL-like (LGPL, GPL2) License.

Is it acceptable ?

If not... will have to drop this package from fedora...

Remi

[1] https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/php-pecl-radius
[2] https://github.com/LawnGnome/php-radius/blob/master/radius.c
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

Gmane