Miro Hrončok | 22 Feb 15:19 2015
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Is this just MIT?

Hi,

is this just MIT [1]?

Or the last paragraph makes it different?

[1] https://github.com/memononen/libtess2/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

Thanks,
--

-- 
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Pierre-Yves Chibon | 20 Feb 09:31 2015
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] About automated scratch-build

Hi,

Earlier this week we pushed in production a system that automatically downloads
new sources of projects packaged in Fedora, adjust the spec file in distgit to
match the new version and runs a scratch build on koji.
The system takes the new-release information from anitya [1], opens a ticket on
bugzilla for package flagged for monitoring on pkgdb and report whether the
scratch build was successful or not in that bugzilla ticket opened.

Today, I was asked the question whether there could be some legal issue about
automatically downloading new sources and running scratch builds with them.
I guess this could be a problem if a project suddenly went closed source or
started including non-free component(s).
On the other hand, I do not see this any different from scratch build performed
on packages before their review on bugzilla.

To clear this, could I have legal's opinion on this question?

Thanks,
Pierre
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] xdrawchem: free or non-free code?

Dear list,
I'm trying to close off some old bugs and came across this one:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019042

Could someone take a look and confirm that what I found is acceptable
and the files in question (xdrawchem/boshcp.*) are free enough for Fedora?

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
Remi Collet | 2 Feb 09:25 2015

[Fedora-legal-list] CC-BY-SA version ?

Hi

On https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing

We have CC-BY-SA version 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Latest version is 4.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Is this license valid ?
Or just a small update to our wiki needed ?

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

Gmane