Could you please review this license and add it ....

Greeting All ! 

This is related to a package I submitted for review:
WordNet - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473583

This package is licensed under it's own specific license, something called the WordNet 3.0 license:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/license

I would appreciate it if you could review this (very short, textwise) license and add it to the acceptable
software licenses list at:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses

For what it's worth, I assume, this should not be too difficult to evaluate as an open source license.
Further more, wordnet (the package) is already available along with a lot of linux distros. (which I
understand would not automatically imply that it's OSS ...but still ...:) )

thanks for your help,
regards,
- steve

PS: adding a note to the BZ once this is approved, might help, else, I can always point the package reviewer to
the fedoraproject.org page.

 

Re: Could you please review this license and add it ....

On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 14:46 +0000, Steve wrote:
> Greeting All ! 
> 
> This is related to a package I submitted for review:
> WordNet - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473583
> 
> This package is licensed under it's own specific license, something called the WordNet 3.0 license:
> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/license
> 
> I would appreciate it if you could review this (very short, textwise) license and add it to the acceptable
software licenses list at:

It's just another MIT variant. I've added a comment to the bz ticket.

~spot

Re: License opinion required

On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 10:28 -0330, David Carter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm packaging software with the following license on part of the code,  
> and I need to know if it's OK.

Unfortunately, it isn't okay.

This is non-free, because there is no permission to redistribute
modified versions of code under this license, only to "Make copies of
the original file you download and distribute it". That, combined with:
"Except as expressly stated above, HP and tang-IT grant no other
licenses, express or implied, by estoppel or otherwise, to any
intellectual property rights." means that we cannot assume permission to
distribute modified/derived works is implied.

HP usually does a better job of this, perhaps they'd be willing to fix
this license, or re-license this work under an established free license?

~spot

jai-imageio-core license questions

Hi,

jai-imageio-core is a Java package from Sun that includes plugins for
Java that adds various image codecs, most notably TIFF. It would be
really useful to have this in Fedora, so I'm thinking of packaging.

Unfortunately, there are a few issues:

GOOD: the website claims it is BSD
https://jai-imageio-core.dev.java.net/

BAD:  it contains jj2000 which doesn't seem like BSD
https://jai-imageio-core.dev.java.net/source/browse/jai-imageio-core/src/share/classes/jj2000/j2k/JJ2KInfo.java?rev=1.1&view=markup

GOOD: TIFF seems to be BSD
https://jai-imageio-core.dev.java.net/source/browse/jai-imageio-core/src/share/classes/com/sun/media/imageioimpl/plugins/tiff/TIFFImageReader.java?rev=1.13&view=markup

I assume jj2000 can't go in to Fedora. I filed a Sun bugreport about
this BSD confusion, but they are quiet on it. Am I wrong? Can jj2000 go
in? (It would be useful.) Would I just need to strip jj2000 out of this
package to make it ok for Fedora?

Thanks,

Adam

_______________________________________________
Fedora-legal-list mailing list

Re: jai-imageio-core license questions

On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 17:48 -0500, Adam Goode wrote:

> I assume jj2000 can't go in to Fedora. I filed a Sun bugreport about
> this BSD confusion, but they are quiet on it. Am I wrong? Can jj2000 go
> in? (It would be useful.) Would I just need to strip jj2000 out of this
> package to make it ok for Fedora?

For two reasons, jj2000 can't go into Fedora:

1. The license it is under is non-free (only "JJ2000 Partners" have
right to use, there is no right to modify, heavy use restrictions based
on standard compliance).
2. JPEG 2000 is heavily patent mined.

You'd need to strip jj2000 out of the source tarball and ship a "clean"
tarball to make it okay for Fedora.

Sun is historically really bad at licensing issues like this, although
recently, they seem to be at least more interested in resolving these
issues. Unfortunately, the patent issues around JPEG 2000 mean that even
if this code was under an acceptable license, we still couldn't ship it.

~spot

Re: jai-imageio-core license questions

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> For two reasons, jj2000 can't go into Fedora:
> 
> 1. The license it is under is non-free (only "JJ2000 Partners" have
> right to use, there is no right to modify, heavy use restrictions based
> on standard compliance).
> 2. JPEG 2000 is heavily patent mined.
> 
> You'd need to strip jj2000 out of the source tarball and ship a "clean"
> tarball to make it okay for Fedora.

Yeah, this is what I thought. Thanks for verifying this.

> Sun is historically really bad at licensing issues like this, although
> recently, they seem to be at least more interested in resolving these
> issues. Unfortunately, the patent issues around JPEG 2000 mean that even
> if this code was under an acceptable license, we still couldn't ship it.

This seems strange to me: if patents are a problem then why does Fedora
ship 2 other JPEG 2000 libraries already? (jasper since FC3, openjpeg
since F7.)

Thanks,

Adam

_______________________________________________
Fedora-legal-list mailing list

Re: jai-imageio-core license questions

>>>>> "AG" == Adam Goode <adam@...> writes:

AG> This seems strange to me: if patents are a problem then why does
AG> Fedora ship 2 other JPEG 2000 libraries already? (jasper since
AG> FC3, openjpeg since F7.)

Maybe they need to removed.  Not every reviewer feels able to do a
patent review, you know, and occasionally things get in that
shouldn't.

 - J<

Re: jai-imageio-core license questions

On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 14:44 -0500, Adam Goode wrote:

> This seems strange to me: if patents are a problem then why does Fedora
> ship 2 other JPEG 2000 libraries already? (jasper since FC3, openjpeg
> since F7.)

The lawyers are thinking extra-double hard about this (thanks for
pointing it out).
When they decide something, I'll let you know.

In the interim, if you wanted to try to resolve the licensing issue with
Sun, that might not be a bad idea. :)

~spot

Re: jai-imageio-core license questions

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 14:44 -0500, Adam Goode wrote:
> 
>> This seems strange to me: if patents are a problem then why does Fedora
>> ship 2 other JPEG 2000 libraries already? (jasper since FC3, openjpeg
>> since F7.)
> 
> The lawyers are thinking extra-double hard about this (thanks for
> pointing it out).
> When they decide something, I'll let you know.

Glad to be of help. :)

> 
> In the interim, if you wanted to try to resolve the licensing issue with
> Sun, that might not be a bad idea. :)

Here is my old bug report (they basically said they weren't shipping the
code, which is not true, and left it at that):

https://jai-imageio-core.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=162

I also tried contacting some of the jj2000 authors a year ago, and they
basically said that as reference software for ISO, "the code becomes
pretty flexible to use", but didn't know about open source interoperability.

Adam

CAcert.org license

Hi,

For the following review :
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474549

I would need to know if the "Non Related Persons Disclaimer and
Licence" under which the CAcert root certificates files are is
acceptable for Fedora or not. Full text here :
http://www.cacert.org/policy/NRPDisclaimerAndLicence.php

What I see is that it only really applies to liability, and doesn't
cover modifications since those wouldn't make much sense. What does
bother me somewhat is the last part of the "License" section : "You may
NOT distribute certificates or root keys under this licence, nor make
representation about them." as well as the fact that liability might be
transferred to the Fedora Project if the certificates are shipped in
the distribution.

IANAL and I found nothing relevant in the "Licensing" wiki page, which
is why I'm posting here.

Matthias

--

-- 
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora release 10 (Cambridge) - Linux kernel 2.6.27.5-117.fc10.x86_64
Load : 0.52 0.55 0.87