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
Terry Moschou | 16 Mar 07:16 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Spread Open-Source License

Hello

Are you able to approve the Spread Open-Source License
http://www.spread.org/license/license.html

and subsequently update the Good (or Bad) Licenses Table at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Software_License_List

Cheers
Terry


_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Bruno Wolff III | 14 Mar 15:54 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Is this reference to rpmfusion OK?

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zarafa has detailed instructions on how 
to get a patent encumbered package from rpmfusion. I wasn't sure if this 
particular example had been reviewed by legal yet and it seems borderline, 
so I thought I'd ask here. (There are warnings that it is patent 
encumbered in the US and other places and maybe that makes it OK.)
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Miroslav Suchy | 10 Mar 22:33 2014
Picon

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal flag raised on PPSSPP

Hi,
I was forced to remove yet another project from Copr due patents (ffmpeg
bundling). And I got email in response, which (when stripped off the
emotions) contains very good question:

> Launchpad allows restricted softwares, whereas copr doesn't? please search
> for ffmpeg or ppsspp or pcsx2 at https://launchpad.net/
> 
> wait, how does ubuntu circumvent the US laws using PPA and restricted
> codecs?
> 
> Launchpad allows
> https://help.launchpad.net/Legal
> 
> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats/
> 
> May be Ubuntu has better lawyers than redhat!

And I find that I do not know the answer.
What is the trick that Ubuntu can host on PPA, Lunchpad etc. restricted
content, but Fedora can not?

Mirek

_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Parag Nemade | 27 Feb 06:13 2014
Orion Poplawski | 20 Feb 22:24 2014
Dennis Gilmore | 13 Feb 12:45 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Requirements for an official Fedora account for Google Cloud Engine

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi all,

The Cloud Working group would like to provide official Fedora images in
Google Cloud Engine[1] in addition to the ones we upload to
Amazon's EC2.  What do we need to do to legally have an account that we
can use as the official source of Fedora provided images. I am concerned
with ensuring that all legal agreements are properly setup and signed.

I do not know if there is any other cloud providers that we wish to
automatically provide images to at this point.

Dennis

[1] https://cloud.google.com/products/compute-engine/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=LUHZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Dennis Gilmore | 11 Feb 13:52 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Source Requirements

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

A couple of questions.

1) can we please stop making source isos? the source is available in
the source tree.

2) cloud WG wants to be able to produce updates images, what are our
requirements to ensuring source compliance with the GPL?

Today the sources for livecds and appliance images are only in the
source tree and not separated out. if we do updates images some sources
will be in the base source tree and some in updates, however the
updates sources will go away if the package gets another update. the
only single source where we could point people at is koji. 

Dennis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJS+hz3AAoJEH7ltONmPFDR1icQAKhOvFziBsnYpi+wSYTGZUAH
++P1NeCQ4DKDz046kHJ5bGqw+IPNykwOP9RFKTx2v1ajAcMdvxWhR55+QextwHhn
b7lXE84mn+AM2uU64l+dVFireCi+Lh5XAVBO0aHGM5/olw/8DDuoVn+17O6ooaVr
mEQ/mGfjUDE+YDIIEcPjJ9HxkvQu3QDedayqThGfRZO4W8nLCBcAtCLm0kLC5Kv7
aVbRghC4wEKLU/PY7HzmlXla6GJfwZ024fE6qrZ6tyN6Rhn1x6xtT4WbU6GUDLKu
qZjUDX/p689VnH1PT+W9B0Oy9Z8TkfrtouxfoLVtzEThv3APE2K33H7MyrHS8ORy
ii1XHttX2bSmt92Wuj8ceY92oZk00wfTwJ4dUQj4ZQYQbyGAW31uymtiPwTUNTcw
3tgaSCeaI7w1W+dsyKcRVQyiau2WUojGhXdTf2r9dTuAuIGIJogg7iyhCDc45O3m
0u7snSxpYZ/jgpODC45sO/JvevYSD4vzCwFA4vW14jDKobCvLCiPt7atSI/uivwt
qO6TiiapgBCtkjYO98Pcqhu5x0xx7jS86iOi+D02hZGWx+7twsOaj6DyaZYuZyaf
sbonFLT0zejhcYgE+CAv+zPPeAKmapFZK7Gj3Kb3MWbxpwrWsyrTiy8MgFyp9wDl
9yFR9Bdcrpr+DhhF5KcR
=jifW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Denis Fateyev | 7 Feb 14:16 2014
Michael Simacek | 16 Jan 15:28 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Licensing of Apache UIMAJ

Hello,

I'm doing a review of Apache UIMAJ, which is licensed under ASL 2.0.
But there is a NOTICE file, which says:
Apache UIMA
Copyright 2006 The Apache Software Foundation

This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).

Portions of UIMA were originally developed by
International Business Machines Corporation and are
licensed to the Apache Software Foundation under the
"Software Grant License Agreement", informally known as the
"IBM UIMA License Agreement".
Copyright (c) 2003, 2006 IBM Corporation.

What does it mean in context of Fedora packaging? Can it be included in Fedora?
Should the License tag reflect that somehow?

The review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005782

Regards,
Michael Simacek
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Sam Kottler | 24 Jan 20:39 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Using 'fedora' in a github organization name

Greetings legal <at> ,

The Fedora cloud SIG has setup an organization called 'fedora-cloud' on
GitHub for mirroring some dist-git repos in the hopes of getting more
contributions. The question was asked on the cloud list (cc'ed) about
whether we need to get usage approval for the Fedora name to use it in
the organization name. fedora-infra has their own GitHub organization so
there is at least some precedence here.

Do we need to get board approval for usage of 'fedora' in our GitHub org?

Thanks for your help.

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

Gmane