Jason L Tibbitts III | 24 Jan 22:27 2015
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] 04Font licensing

Recently a package (apx) was found which bundled a font.  A discussion
with the apx developers can be found at
https://github.com/projecthamster/apx/issues/4

The question is whether the apx developer's statement that he received
written permission to relicense the font as CC-BY is sufficient, or if
Fedora needs to get that proof somehow and include it as %license text.

Thanks,

 - J<
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Laurent Rineau | 22 Jan 16:17 2015

[Fedora-legal-list] GPLv3+GPLv2 with runtime exceptions

The license of Intel TBB [1] is "GPLv2 with exceptions". The license of 
CGAL [2] is "LGPLv3+ and GPLv3+ and Boost".

Since CGAL-4.5, some modules of CGAL have parallelization, implemented using 
TBB. I wonder if the license "GPLv2 with exceptions" is compatible with 
GPLv3+. Can Fedora ship CGAL applications, under GPLv3+, that use TBB?

[1]: TBB
https://www.threadingbuildingblocks.org/
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/tbb/

[2]: CGAL
http://www.cgal.org/
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/CGAL/

--

-- 
Laurent Rineau
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LaurentRineau

_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Jan Pokorný | 21 Jan 18:44 2015

[Fedora-legal-list] Legally questionable images in cairo-dock-plug-ins (under review)

Hello,

I am reaching to solicit feedback on the items pointed out in:
. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912#c2
  - small icons resembling the company logos as per the file name
. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912#c4
  - GUI bitmap resembling that of StarCraft II
    (discovered only thanks to an honest file name)

Also I am afraid there is no scalable way to discovery such cases, but
would be keen to know any hints.  There may be similar cases present
in the existing Fedora packages (I actually pointed out the Firefox case
in the comment, but this may be somewhat exceptional), so having some
at least a bit capable (keyword based?) detector might benefit Fedora
en masse.

--

-- 
Jan
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Marek Brysa | 14 Jan 14:27 2015
Picon

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Privacy policy

Hi Matthias and Florian,

I wasn't subscribed to the list so I can't reply directly to the thread.

The data contained in the automatic bug report (uReport) is described here:
https://github.com/abrt/faf/wiki/uReport
It was designed with anonymity as a requirement and doesn't contain any user sensitive data, only a simple
backtrace and some statistical info like OS version and related package versions.
We don't save IP addresses where the reports are coming from.

Reporting to Bugzilla may contain sensitive data (coredump), but is manual, for advanced users only and
the user is required to do a review of the data.

If you need anything more or to clarify something, please don't hesitate to contact us.
Thank you.

Best regards,
Marek
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Matthias Clasen | 13 Jan 21:58 2015
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Privacy policy

Hi,

we are working on improving the abrt integration in the Fedora
Workstation for F22. Part of this is adding a 'automatic bug reporting'
setting to the privacy panel in the control center (see the last
mockup
in
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gnome-design-team/gnome-mockups/master/system-settings/privacy/current-gen.png )

The design suggests that we should include a link to privacy policy of
the OS vendor here. I've been pointed at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:PrivacyPolicy as the existing
Fedora privacy policy, but that seems entirely focused on Fedora the
project, not on the OS itself. It also does not mention coredumps (and
the associated data we may collect) at all. Could you add a section
about that here, or should there be a separate page describing the
privacy expectations when using Fedora, the OS ?

Matthias

_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Jerry James | 5 Jan 20:06 2015
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] QPL with exceptions

The ocaml-menhir package has some code that is covered by QPL, but
with an exception.  The LICENSE file says:

As a special exception to the Q Public Licence, you may develop
application programs, reusable components and other software items
that link with the original or modified versions of the Generator
and are not made available to the general public, without any of the
additional requirements listed in clause 6c of the Q Public licence.

Should I describe this as QPL, or does this call for a "QPL with
exceptions" tag?  Rpmlint says the latter is (currently) invalid.
Thanks,
--

-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Miroslav Suchý | 5 Jan 09:06 2015
Face
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Can Copr use rpmfusion?

I would like to clarify (and put in FAQ):

Can projects, which reside on Copr use rpmfusion (and generaly other restricted repos) if:
 1) it is purely runtime dependency for those packages? (IMO yes, it is allowed).
 2) it is used for runtime and buildtime and result is dynamicaly linked (not sure, but I would say allowed,
but IANAL)
 3) is is used for runtime and buildtime and result is sticaly linked (IMO not possible).

--

-- 
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
Tom Callaway | 2 Jan 16:40 2015
Picon

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] URGENT! REMOVAL REQUEST! From the Netherlands

On 12/30/2014 11:17 PM, Shad Ali wrote:

> Somebody tries to damage and humiliate my cliënt by puting defamatory
> content/text on your website in Dutch language with the intention to be
> easily found in the Google Search Engine for other people and hoping
> they will believe what he wrote on your website. Namely over 80% of
> Dutch people use www.google.nl <http://www.google.nl> nowadays to find
> something in our country.

We've pulled this material down, but the nature of the fpaste site means
that anyone can put up text like it at any time. This does not mean that
we condone misuse of the service, it is intended for sharing debugging
and code, not rumors or defamatory content.

~tom

==
Red Hat
Attachment (tcallawa.vcf): text/x-vcard, 8 bytes
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
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

Gmane