headers
Tom Callaway | 1 Nov 2011 04:39
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Is the Dxflib license free?

On 10/30/2011 04:35 PM, Volker Fröhlich wrote:
> The sentence you quoted, tries to briefly explain the GPL, and obviously fails 
> to do so accurately. Though they state before, the GPLv2 applies.
> 
> I'm curious: Would you regard it free if this sentence were not there?

Probably not. This was just the most obvious reason, the license is
poorly worded. If upstream is interested, I might be able to suggest
changes that would make it free.

This isn't actually an unheard of problem, where the license attempts to
explain the GPL (and fails, causing restrictions and/or non-free state
to become the actual license) as opposed to simply saying "This software
is licensed under the GPLv2."

~tom

==
Fedora Project
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John5342 | 7 Nov 2011 18:22
Picon
Gravatar

[Fedora-legal-list] Organization address (required for volunteer work)

Hi.

Tax and benefit requirements here require me to declare all work, both
paid and unpaid, and provide the full name and address of each
company, organization or person i am working for. I am volunteering
for the Fedora Project but i cannot find these details clearly defined
anywhere on the fedoraproject.org website. Therefore i am writing to
this list in the hope that somebody can provide the details details or
point me to where i can find them.

To summarize, i need the the full name and address of the
company/organization/person i am working for as a result of
volunteering for Fedora Project.

Thank you very much in advance.

--

-- 
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary
and those who don't...
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Tom Callaway | 7 Nov 2011 19:15
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Organization address (required for volunteer work)

On 11/07/2011 12:22 PM, John5342 wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> Tax and benefit requirements here require me to declare all work, both
> paid and unpaid, and provide the full name and address of each
> company, organization or person i am working for. I am volunteering
> for the Fedora Project but i cannot find these details clearly defined
> anywhere on the fedoraproject.org website. Therefore i am writing to
> this list in the hope that somebody can provide the details details or
> point me to where i can find them.
> 
> To summarize, i need the the full name and address of the
> company/organization/person i am working for as a result of
> volunteering for Fedora Project.

This is a tough one. I think the best thing we can say here is that the
primary and majority sponsor of the Fedora Project is Red Hat, Inc.

Red Hat, Inc.
1801 Varsity Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606

Hope that helps,

~tom

==
Fedora Project
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Shakthi Kannan | 14 Nov 2011 17:35
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Research Software License Agreement

Hi,

What type of license does this research license fall under?

  http://embedded.eecs.berkeley.edu/pubs/downloads/software.agree.html

=== B3TERMS_OF_USE ===

The terms under which the software is provided  are as the following.

Software is distributed as is, completely without warranty or service
support. The University of California and its employees are not liable
for the condition or performance of the software.

The University owns the copyright but shall not be liable for any
infringement of copyright or other proprietary rights brought by third
parties against the users of the software.

The University of California hereby disclaims all implied warranties.

The University of California grants the users the right to modify, copy,
and redistribute the software and documentation, both within the user's
organization and externally, subject to the following restrictions:

1. The users agree not to charge for the University of California code
   itself but may charge for additions, extensions, or support.

2. In any product based on the software, the users agree to acknowledge
   the UC Berkeley BSIM Research Group that developed the software. This
   acknowledgment shall appear in the product documentation.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
David Nalley | 14 Nov 2011 18:05
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Research Software License Agreement

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. The users agree not to charge for the University of California code
>   itself but may charge for additions, extensions, or support.

This strikes me as non-free.
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Richard Fontana | 14 Nov 2011 18:23
Picon
Favicon

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Research Software License Agreement

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:05:25PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1. The users agree not to charge for the University of California code
> >   itself but may charge for additions, extensions, or support.
> 
> 
> This strikes me as non-free.

Agreed, should be treated as nonfree. Reminiscent of SunRPC, though
more ambiguous.

- RF

_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Orion Poplawski | 18 Nov 2011 22:38
Favicon
Gravatar

[Fedora-legal-list] LGPL and MPL

I'm submitting pslib for review: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753855

License tag as we see it is: LGPLv2+ and MPLv1.0 and MIT

MPLv1.0 is listed as GPL incompatible, does that also apply to the LGPL?

Thanks!

--

-- 
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
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter Lemenkov | 23 Nov 2011 08:30
Picon
Gravatar

[Fedora-legal-list] iLBC codec sources status

Hello All!

The legal status of iLBC codec (which has some advantages over other
speech codecs) prevented us from inclusion its sources into Fedora
repository. We even were forced to modify original tarballs for
several VoIP software projects to remove its sources before uploading
to the Fedora packaging repository.

Fortunately Google had bought Global IP Sound company, the original
author of iLBC and several months ago they released WebRTC project
under free license which contains several codecs (and ILBC among
them). Unfortunately it's not an easy task to properly package
software from Google (as usual), so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting
for proper support for iLBC codec in the nearest future.

So current situation with iLBC looks quite complicated to me. We have
old sources stripped from RFC text which were licensed under non-free
custom license and were included in a lot of other VoIP projects as
is. Also we have new modified sources released by Google under free
license (within WebRTC) with somewhat different API (none of the
existing VoIP software is compatible with them AFAIC). Google
explicitly states that iLBC now available under the same license as
other WebRTC parts but I'm not sure what's the status of old sources.

*My* *question* *is* - can we at least stop stripping of iLBC sources
from packages? I will definitely ask FESCo later which is in charge of
making technical decisions regarding unbundling libraries, however
before asking technical questions I'd like to hear some legal advises.

* http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3951.txt
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Tom Callaway | 23 Nov 2011 18:08
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] iLBC codec sources status

On 11/23/2011 02:30 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> *My* *question* *is* - can we at least stop stripping of iLBC sources
> from packages? I will definitely ask FESCo later which is in charge of
> making technical decisions regarding unbundling libraries, however
> before asking technical questions I'd like to hear some legal advises.

Not yet. I'm investigating this issue. Stay tuned.

~tom
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Shakthi Kannan | 30 Nov 2011 08:10
Picon

[Fedora-legal-list] Suprem4 Stanford license clarification

Hi,

I would like to know if the following license terms are acceptable for Fedora?

=== LICENSE ===

  (C) Copyright (1994) The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior
University. Except for commercial resale, lease, license or other commercial
transactions, permission is hereby given to use, copy, modify, and
distribute this software. STANFORD MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES
OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THIS SOFTWARE.

No support is implied or provided for these older versions of Stanford
TCAD software.

=== END ===

Source: https://github.com/cogenda/Suprem4

My assumption is that it is non-free because it restricts its resale,
lease for a specific purpose?

SK

--

-- 
Shakthi Kannan
http://www.shakthimaan.com
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane