Steve Traylen | 3 Dec 16:42 2014
Picon
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Software with no license rubygem-sshkeyauth


What's the story for software with no license.

Is there anyway to package rubygem-sshkeyauth for Fedora.

In particular

https://github.com/jordansissel/ruby-sshkeyauth

has an open request now for one year to add a license.

https://github.com/jordansissel/ruby-sshkeyauth/issues/3

Steve.
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
František Dvořák | 1 Dec 18:34 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Apache license text in ruby gems

Hello,

I'm packaging a ruby gem under Apache 2.0 license, and I asked upstream
to include license text file, pointing to LicensingGuidelines at [1].

Upstream developer has a questions, I don't know how to answer [2]:

"Do you require the license text only in the git repository as a
LICENSE.txt file or also as part of the gem bundle? I assume I don't
need the full Apache 2.0 license, but simply the extract that can be
found at the bottom of this project's README. Is that correct?"

Is the brief "extract" at end of the [3] enough for gems (and I can
include full text in the Fedora package)? In many projects the gem
archive use to contain only the ruby files, to be as small as possible.

Thank you,
  František

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
[2] https://github.com/trevorrowe/jmespath.rb/issues/3
[3] https://github.com/trevorrowe/jmespath.rb

_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Eric Smith | 28 Nov 22:28 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Transitive Grace Period Public LIcense ("TGGPL") v. 1.0

Is this license, used by Tahoe-LAFS, acceptable for Fedora (and EPEL)?

https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/trunk/COPYING.TGPPL.rst?rev=18b44383dc45c9f8dba9cb0149682bded6941028

As you can see, the file starts with a list of exception clauses
granting additional permissions, similar to some of the common
GPL+exceptions licenses. The license body looks OK to my non-expert
eyes; the main differences seem to be that the copyleft requirements
are allowed under some circumstances to be delayed for up to a year
(section 1c), and the external deployment provisions (section 5),
which I think are similar to the AGPL.

If there are any issues with the license preventing it from being
packaged for Fedora, I think the author may be amenable to working
them out.

Thanks,
Eric
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Vassilis Palassopoulos | 19 Nov 23:27 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Claims about Fair License

Hi there,

I was searching to find more information about the Fair License and found out it was mentioned here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main

The entry in the fedora wiki says it's FSF free, GPLv2 compliant, GPLv3 compliant but I can't find any source
for that (e.g. in FSF or GNU website like https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html ). There's
an article in wikipedia but it's missing any citation towards these claims. The license is in the list of
approved OSI licenses as one can see http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical but that doesn't
say much in regards to the 3 claims.

The closest thing I could find is the fact that in an OSI board meeting the WTFPL was considered redundant to
the Fair License http://opensource.org/minutes20090304
FSF considers WTFPL a free software and GPL-compatible license https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#WTFPL

Personally, after reading the license, I don't think that the claims are wrong but I'm not an expert and
determining the status of a license through the status of another license being used as a proxy could be risky.

Are there any reliable sources towards these claims? Is there a reasoning on why they are mentioned in the
fedora wiki article (and if so I'd be interested to know what the reasoning is) or does it require more
research before stating these claims?

Kind Regards,
Vassilis Palassopoulos
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Jiri Kastner | 19 Nov 10:18 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] opencascade lgpl 2.1 exception

hi,
is this lgpl 2.1 exception acceptable for fedora - 
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tpaviot/oce/master/
OCCT_LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt ?
in rpmfusion.org is OCE (opencascade community edition - having some 
additional work applied) i would like to see it in fedora together in 
freecad.

best regards
jiri kastner

_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Matthew Miller | 19 Nov 01:02 2014

[Fedora-legal-list] we need updated trademark / logo guidelines for cloud / server / workstation

I think we should update or add to 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines with the new
Fedora Cloud, Fedora Server, and Fedora Workstation logos. And possibly
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines as well.

How do we go about doing this?

--

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm <at> fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Sindhu S | 18 Nov 08:01 2014
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] reg. fedora name as trademark

hi

I noticed there is a website called usefedora.com that sells a product to make online schools. Is this a violation of any trademark that redhat might hold with regards to the Fedora name?

Thanks!

--
-Sindhu
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Ken Dreyer | 29 Oct 22:20 2014

[Fedora-legal-list] clarifying license of rubygem-posix-spawn

Hi folks,

I'm trying to sort out the license tag for rubygem-posix-spawn. This
package has a function that's copied from glibc. As explained in the
footnote (https://github.com/rtomayko/posix-spawn/blob/master/COPYING#L24-L28)

  A small portion of the environ dup'ing code in ext/posix-spawn.c
  was taken from glibc <http://www.gnu.org/s/libc/> and is maybe
  Copyright (c) 2011 by The Free Software Foundation or maybe
  by others mentioned in the glibc LICENSES file. glibc is
  distributed under the terms of the LGPL license.

From what I understand, this makes rubygem-posix-spawn dual-licensed
under the MIT and LGPL licenses, right?

I've opened a ticket upstream, and I'm not sure how to respond to
https://github.com/rtomayko/posix-spawn/pull/44 the author's comment
about the block glibc code being de minimis.

To summarize, should rubygem-posix-spawn have a License tag of "MIT
and LGPL", or just "MIT" ?

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

[Fedora-legal-list] CC-BY 2.0 ... but with restrictions?

Hi,
I'm trying to package EFF's Privacy Badger Firefox extension, which
seems to have a lot of JavaScript and CSS code bundled. One of the
bundled scripts is a SHA1 implementation from
http://www.webtoolkit.info/javascript-sha1.html .

The licence as linked from http://www.webtoolkit.info/license1 seems
to be CC-BY 2.0 UK, but the page states some additional restrictions
if I'm reading it correctly. Is this free enough for inclusion in Fedora
or should I talk to the author about clarifying/relicencing?

Regards,
Dominik
--

-- 
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org
"Faith manages."
        -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Miroslav Suchý | 13 Oct 16:16 2014
Face
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Unicode License

I am doing review of packaging python-idna which have license:
   https://github.com/kjd/idna/blob/master/LICENSE.rst
I'm scratching my head as the unicode license:
   http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html
does not match:
   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD?rd=Licensing/UCD
So is this new license, which need review. Or update of old license? Does somebody know?

--

-- 
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
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>

This looks like a MIT variant. The packager patched the package adding a 
MIT license copy. I'm not sure what to do about this. I added FE-Legal 
as blocking bug to the package review ticket. I hope you can give me 
some guidance.

Thanks,
Eduardo

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129902
[2] 
https://bitbucket.org/haard/gitapi/raw/ba6a152901d5772454c90a3d779d461db8ae2c74/README.rst

--

-- 
http://about.me/mayorgatellez
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

Gmane