Fedora-legal-list -- List to discuss Fedora Legal issues. ()

headers Harikiran Enna | 14 May 2013 07:32

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

https://github.com/vasi/pixz/blob/master/LICENSE

Debian says it's "BSD-2-Clause":

http://ftp-master.metadata.debian.org/changelogs//main/p/pixz/pixz_1.0.2-1_copyright

It appears to be the same as this:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD?rd=Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD

except without the final paragraph.

So it's just "BSD"?

Rich.

--

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and
build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
As has been discussed on fedora-devel, I have an issue with the zocial 
font package. The question is if this font because of it's use of 
trademarked logos can't be used in Fedora.

Any help out there?

--alec

Links:
Font overview: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/tmp/zocial.png
Discussion on devel: 
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-May/182194.html
Review request (needing update, I know): 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956120
FPC ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/277

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

On the review request for xfe:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150
a question was raised on the license of xvt/xvt.c in
xfe-1.34.tar.gz, which says:

/*  Copyright 1992, 1994 John Bovey, University of Kent at Canterbury.
 *
 *  Redistribution and use in source code and/or executable forms, with
 *  or without modification, are permitted provided that the following
 *  condition is met:
 *
 *  Any redistribution must retain the above copyright notice, this
 *  condition and the following disclaimer, either as part of the
 *  program source code included in the redistribution or in human-
 *  readable materials provided with the redistribution.
 *
 *  THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS".  Any express or implied
 *  warranties concerning this software are disclaimed by the copyright
 *  holder to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.  In no
 *  event shall the copyright-holder be liable for any damages of any
 *  kind, however caused and on any theory of liability, arising in any
 *  way out of the use of, or inability to use, this software.
 *
 *  -------------------------------------------------------------------
 *
 *  In other words, do not misrepresent my work as your own work, and
 *  do not sue me if it causes problems.  Feel free to do anything else
 *  you wish with it.
 */

I think this can be MIT, however I would appreciate if someone would check
the license above.

Regards,
Mamoru

_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
nodejs-ansi upstream tarball contains yoshi.png which is a character from
Nintendo games. It's used in one of examples to display it on a console. It's
not *really* needed and could be replaced with completely different image if
needed. 

Question is: do we have to do something about it or not? If it makes any
difference the image is *really* low quality (64x21 pixels).

--

-- 
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky <at> redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Developer Experience

PGP: 7B087241
Red Hat Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
I'm packaging StarCluster for Fedora 
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949371) and I'm running 
into some questions about the licensing.

README.rst and setup.py and PKG-INFO indicates LGPLv3

The only python files with a header indicate:
starcluster/progressbar.py: LGPL (v2.1 or later)
starcluster/sshutils/scp.py: LGPL (v2.1 or later)

And then of course there are the jquery bundled js libs, which are dual 
MIT and GPLv2:

./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.js: * Dual licensed under the MIT 
or GPL Version 2 licenses.
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.js: * http://jquery.org/license
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.js: * Released under the MIT, BSD, 
and GPL Licenses.
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.js: *  Released under the MIT, 
BSD, and GPL Licenses.
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.js: * Released under the MIT 
license by IOLA, December 2007.
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.js: * Released under the MIT 
license by Ole Laursen, October 2009.
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.navigate.js:Licensed under 
the MIT License ~ http://threedubmedia.googlecode.com/files/MIT-LICENSE.txt
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.navigate.js: * Dual licensed 
under the MIT (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php)
./starcluster/templates/web/js/jquery.flot.navigate.js: * and GPL 
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php) licenses.

So, does:

LGPLv3 and (MIT or GPLv2)

cover it?  I don't like that the (few) license headers don't match the 
other license comments.

--

-- 
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager                     303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division                    FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane                  orion <at> cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301              http://www.cora.nwra.com
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 09:27:16AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Ping. I'd like to get an answer on this soon, if possible.

The answer is: yes, this arrangement is acceptable.

 - RF

> 
> On Thu 04 Apr 2013 01:07:53 PM EDT, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On 04/04/2013 11:41 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> We have some concerns about whether our licensing will be in 
> >> conflict in the OpenLMI project. I'll attempt to describe the 
> >> topography. Tomas, please correct me if I have misrepresented 
> >> anything.
> >> 
> >> We have three components in question here:
> >> 
> >> 1) The OpenPegasus CIMOM. This is a daemon licensed under MIT.
> >> It has a plugin architecture that enables it to dlopen() plugin 
> >> modules and use them. (Dynamic linking by dlopen)
> >> 
> >> 2) The SBLIM providers. These are a set of CIMOM plugins
> >> licensed under the MPL that provides some common, standard
> >> interfaces through OpenPegasus.
> > 
> > Sorry, important distinction. This should have been EPL (as I 
> > correctly mention below).
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >> 3) The OpenLMI providers. These are plugins licensed under
> >> LGPLv2+ that consume some of the functionality provided by the
> >> SBLIM providers, but which do so by means of local communication
> >> through the OpenPegasus CIMOM.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Our question here is whether this is an acceptable arrangement.
> >> I see two potential pitfalls that I would like (hopefully) to
> >> have dispelled. A) I know it is acceptable for an MIT application
> >> to link separately to an EPL library and an LGPL library.
> >> However, is the resulting linked chimera also permissable, given
> >> that the two libraries themselves do not have a direct link? B)
> >> Is the indirect link between the OpenLMI providers (LGPL) and the
> >> SBLIM providers (EPL) acceptable, given that it does so only
> >> through interfaces provided by OpenPegasus (MIT) and not through
> >> direct function calls?
> >> 
> > 
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAlF2jDQACgkQeiVVYja6o6MLxACgrjW4NChOqq6tEePqH7aerHPS
> /SsAn3DK0o/jophaFb9EQS7jFeQ5dmEW
> =/oVt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Had a contributor willing to start packaging,
http://julius.sourceforge.jp/en_index.php?q=index-en.html

With licensing terms:
http://julius.sourceforge.jp/LICENSE.txt

It claims to be OSI-compatible, is it?
If so, what license tag to use?

-- rex

_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
I noticed that docbook-style-xsl package has License tag set to "Copyright
only". However this is the text of COPYING file:

Copyright
---------
Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Norman Walsh
Copyright (C) 2003 Jiří Kosek
Copyright (C) 2004-2007 Steve Ball
Copyright (C) 2005-2008 The DocBook Project
Copyright (C) 2011-2012 O'Reilly Media

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, subject to the following
conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Except as contained in this notice, the names of individuals
credited with contribution to this software shall not be used in
advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other
dealings in this Software without prior written authorization
from the individuals in question.

Any stylesheet derived from this Software that is publically
distributed will be identified with a different name and the
version strings in any derived Software will be changed so that
no possibility of confusion between the derived package and this
Software will exist.

Warranty
--------
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 NORMAN WALSH OR ANY OTHER
CONTRIBUTOR 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.

Is the above really considered copyright only? If so it might be nice to add it
to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:CopyrightOnly as a specific example.
Perhaps the word "shall" is cousing all of this to be copyright only? In any
way, clearing it up will help with bug reported against dblatex (which contains
modified versions of xslt stylesheets)

--

-- 
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky <at> redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Developer Experience

PGP: 7B087241
Red Hat Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
HI,
how can I use this in a package?

     Copyright 2001, softSurfer (www.softsurfer.com)
     This code may be freely used and modified for any purpose
     providing that this copyright notice is included with it.
     SoftSurfer makes no warranty for this code, and cannot be held
     liable for any real or imagined damage resulting from its use.
     Users of this code must verify correctness for their
     application.

Thanks a lot.
--

-- 
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
Jabber: miro <at> hroncok.cz
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

23	May 2013
38	April 2013
18	March 2013
26	February 2013
23	January 2013
9	December 2012
42	November 2012
31	October 2012
7	September 2012
22	August 2012
18	July 2012
7	June 2012
12	May 2012
12	April 2012
15	March 2012
71	February 2012
29	January 2012
16	December 2011
12	November 2011
16	October 2011
20	September 2011
12	August 2011
12	July 2011
33	June 2011
32	May 2011
20	April 2011
33	March 2011
38	February 2011
42	January 2011
11	December 2010
47	November 2010
26	October 2010
30	September 2010
18	August 2010
42	July 2010
19	June 2010
26	May 2010
50	April 2010
43	March 2010
67	February 2010
14	January 2010
65	December 2009
57	November 2009
31	October 2009
34	September 2009
35	August 2009
46	July 2009
67	June 2009
52	May 2009
47	April 2009
70	March 2009
43	February 2009
44	January 2009
32	December 2008
40	November 2008
31	October 2008
42	September 2008
21	August 2008
38	July 2008

[Fedora-legal-list] Have a question about using Fedora14 for a university project and publishing the results

[Fedora-legal-list] Which BSD variant is this? (pixz)

[Fedora-legal-list] Q:Trademarked logos in zocial font.

[Fedora-legal-list] License clarification for xvt

[Fedora-legal-list] nodejs-ansi usage of yoshi png file

[Fedora-legal-list] Inconsistent licensing

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Complex licensing interactions for OpenLMI

[Fedora-legal-list] JTF license agreement

[Fedora-legal-list] julius licensing?

[Fedora-legal-list] License of docbook-style-xsl package

[Fedora-legal-list] This code may be freely used and modified for any purpose

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31