From tgl at redhat.com Sat Dec 1 06:51:57 2007 From: tgl at redhat.com (Tom Lane) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:51:57 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: DJB's software components In-Reply-To: <1196432626.9238.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1196432626.9238.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <12572.1196491917@sss.pgh.pa.us> "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" writes: > Recently, most (all?) of Dan Bernstein's software was relicensed into > the public domain. > Please hold off on packaging and submitting these packages for review > into Fedora, pending legal advice as to whether he can actually do that > or not, under US law. [ blink... ] I would be interested to know what legal theory claims that DJB cannot relicense his own work. regards, tom lane From dchen at redhat.com Tue Dec 4 23:42:19 2007 From: dchen at redhat.com (Ding-Yi Chen) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:42:19 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] POSIX licence Message-ID: <4755E5DB.20809@redhat.com> Hi, The man-pages-it has following copyright (POSIX-COPYRIGHT): The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and The Open Group, have given us permission to reprint portions of their documentation. In the following statement, the phrase ``this text'' refers to portions of the system documentation. Portions of this text are reprinted and reproduced in electronic form in the linux-manpages package, from IEEE Std 1003.1 (TM), 2003 Edition, Standard for Information Technology -- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX (R)), The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 6, Copyright (C) 2001-2003 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc and The Open Group. In the event of any discrepancy between these versions and the original IEEE and The Open Group Standard, the original IEEE and The Open Group Standard is the referee document. The original Standard can be obtained online at http://www.opengroup.org/unix/online.html . This notice shall appear on any product containing this material. Redistribution of this material is permitted so long as this notice and the corresponding notices within each POSIX manual page are retained on any distribution, and the nroff source is included. Modifications to the text are permitted so long as any conflicts with the standard are clearly marked as such in the text. ============================================================== Shall we consider this licence free? Regards, Di ng-Yi Chen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dchen.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 296 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Dec 5 00:12:59 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 05:42:59 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] POSIX licence In-Reply-To: <4755E5DB.20809@redhat.com> References: <4755E5DB.20809@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1196813579.3231.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 09:42 +1000, Ding-Yi Chen wrote: > Shall we consider this licence free? Yes, this is listed under the Good Documentation Licenses at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#DocumentationLicenses Use License: IEEE Thanks, ~spot From michael at laptop.org Mon Dec 10 20:04:24 2007 From: michael at laptop.org (Michael Stone) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:04:24 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Encryption Export Control Documentation Message-ID: <20071210200424.GA432@sccs.swarthmore.edu> Dear Fedora-Legal: My name is Michael Stone and I'm providing tech support for OLPC's legal team as they prepare a filing to request a 'mass-market product' classification (ECCN 5D992) from the United States' Bureau of Industry and Security. Specifically, I'm assisting them in filling out Supplement No. 6 to part 742 of the Export Administration Regulations [1]. I'm writing to you because I'm wondering if Fedora has already prepared technical documentation (e.g. lists of algorithms, keyspaces, API documentation, etc.) that can be re-used as a part of OLPC's filing. If so, any pointers to these documents would be much appreciated. Thanks! Michael [1] Sup. 6, 742 EAR: http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/sup6_742.pdf From danms at us.ibm.com Tue Dec 11 15:28:16 2007 From: danms at us.ibm.com (Dan Smith) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:28:16 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] DMTF schema distribution Message-ID: <87ve75ntdb.fsf@theine.beaverton.ibm.com> Hi, I'm working on a CIM provider package where we need to ship a version (v2.16) of the DMTF CIM schema[1] in our package. The tog-pegasus package does this already, but with a *very* old version (v2.9) that does not include any of the virtualization models. The DMTF schema files are not (AFAICT) released under any particular license, but they do have this statement at the top-level: // DMTF is a not-for-profit association of industry members // dedicated to promoting enterprise and systems management and // interoperability. DMTF specifications and documents may be // reproduced for uses consistent with this purpose by members and // non-members, provided that correct attribution is given. I was planning to put a separate COPYING or LICENSE file in the directory of the tarball/RPM containing the schema, highlighting the above and making it clear that the schema was not covered under the LGPL license of the package. I would like some advice on how to proceed. Thanks! 1: http://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim/cim_schema_v216/ -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center Open Hypervisor Team email: danms at us.ibm.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 188 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Dec 11 15:33:42 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:33:42 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: DMTF schema distribution In-Reply-To: <87ve75ntdb.fsf@theine.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <87ve75ntdb.fsf@theine.beaverton.ibm.com> Message-ID: <1197387222.15754.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 07:28 -0800, Dan Smith wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working on a CIM provider package where we need to ship a version > (v2.16) of the DMTF CIM schema[1] in our package. The tog-pegasus > package does this already, but with a *very* old version (v2.9) that > does not include any of the virtualization models. > > The DMTF schema files are not (AFAICT) released under any particular > license, but they do have this statement at the top-level: > > // DMTF is a not-for-profit association of industry members > // dedicated to promoting enterprise and systems management and > // interoperability. DMTF specifications and documents may be > // reproduced for uses consistent with this purpose by members and > // non-members, provided that correct attribution is given. > > I was planning to put a separate COPYING or LICENSE file in the > directory of the tarball/RPM containing the schema, highlighting the > above and making it clear that the schema was not covered under the > LGPL license of the package. > > I would like some advice on how to proceed. That license seems to strongly imply that the schema files are not permitted for commercial use, which is something that we do not permit in Fedora. It would be worthwhile to contact the DMTF and see if they permit commercial use/distribution of their schemas or not. ~spot From danms at us.ibm.com Tue Dec 11 15:51:09 2007 From: danms at us.ibm.com (Dan Smith) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:51:09 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: DMTF schema distribution In-Reply-To: <1197387222.15754.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Tom Callaway's message of "Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:33:42 -0500") References: <87ve75ntdb.fsf@theine.beaverton.ibm.com> <1197387222.15754.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <87r6htnsb6.fsf@theine.beaverton.ibm.com> TC> That license seems to strongly imply that the schema files are not TC> permitted for commercial use, which is something that we do not TC> permit in Fedora. Forgive my legal ignorance, but why does it imply that? Fedora is already shipping an older version of these files, and a number of other companies (IBM included) ship these files with commercial closed-source products. TC> It would be worthwhile to contact the DMTF and see if they permit TC> commercial use/distribution of their schemas or not. They state that the files "may be reproduced for uses consistent with this purpose", with the purpose being "promoting enterprise and systems management and interoperability". Doesn't that imply commercial use? The DTMF is made up of industry members, but I'll try to get a more official read on this. If I get an email saying "yes, it's fine", what else do I need to do to record that for Fedora? Thanks! -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center Open Hypervisor Team email: danms at us.ibm.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 188 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Dec 11 15:58:57 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: DMTF schema distribution In-Reply-To: <87r6htnsb6.fsf@theine.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <87ve75ntdb.fsf@theine.beaverton.ibm.com> <1197387222.15754.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> <87r6htnsb6.fsf@theine.beaverton.ibm.com> Message-ID: <1197388737.15754.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 07:51 -0800, Dan Smith wrote: > TC> That license seems to strongly imply that the schema files are not > TC> permitted for commercial use, which is something that we do not > TC> permit in Fedora. > > Forgive my legal ignorance, but why does it imply that? They use the phrase "consistent with this purpose", and purpose can be implied to mean "a not-for-profit association of industry members dedicated to promoting enterprise and systems management and interoperability." More than likely, it is simply that the DTMF is non-profit, not that the schema is restricted to non-profit intentions, but since they don't really specify any terms or rights for the schema files, it would be best to be clear. > The DTMF is made up of industry members, but I'll try to get a more > official read on this. If I get an email saying "yes, it's fine", > what else do I need to do to record that for Fedora? That would be sufficient, just toss it in the package as a txt file. ~spot From spr at astrax.fis.ucm.es Sun Dec 16 20:05:11 2007 From: spr at astrax.fis.ucm.es (Sergio Pascual) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:05:11 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] MIxing GPL and Apple License Message-ID: <1197835511.4262.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hi, I'm reviewing a program called mt-daap[1]. This program includes code under the Apple Public Source License Version 2.0 and the GPLv2 In the table of Good Licenses in [2], APSL 2.0 appears as non GPLv2 compatible. Does that means that code under both licenses can't be compiled together? In this case, mt-daap can't be licensed under GPLv2 Sergio [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248277 [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 16 20:56:46 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:26:46 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] MIxing GPL and Apple License In-Reply-To: <1197835511.4262.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1197835511.4262.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4765910E.1080901@fedoraproject.org> Sergio Pascual wrote: > Hi, I'm reviewing a program called mt-daap[1]. This program includes > code under the Apple Public Source License Version 2.0 and the GPLv2 > > In the table of Good Licenses in [2], APSL 2.0 appears as non GPLv2 > compatible. Does that means that code under both licenses can't be > compiled together? In this case, mt-daap can't be licensed under GPLv2 This combination of incompatible licensed code would make the whole program non-redistributable except by the original authors. They either need to rewrite the APSL or GPL licensed code afaik. Rahul From geoff at programmer-monk.net Fri Dec 21 15:21:47 2007 From: geoff at programmer-monk.net (Geoff Reedy) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:21:47 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Licensing for Scala Message-ID: <1198250508.1277.5.camel@dirt.local> I am planning to create packages for the Scala programming language[1] for Fedora. The license for Scala[2] seems to be similar to the BSD license, but as suggested by the Licensing page in the fedora wiki I'm sending the details to this list for approval. 1. http://www.scala-lang.org/ 2. http://www.scala-lang.org/downloads/license.html From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Dec 21 15:22:29 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:52:29 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Licensing for Scala In-Reply-To: <1198250508.1277.5.camel@dirt.local> References: <1198250508.1277.5.camel@dirt.local> Message-ID: <476BDA35.3050604@fedoraproject.org> Geoff Reedy wrote: > I am planning to create packages for the Scala programming language[1] > for Fedora. The license for Scala[2] seems to be similar to the BSD > license, but as suggested by the Licensing page in the fedora wiki I'm > sending the details to this list for approval. This is indeed a variant of the standard 3-clause BSD license with no significant deviations. Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Dec 21 16:21:38 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Licensing for Scala In-Reply-To: <476BDA35.3050604@fedoraproject.org> References: <1198250508.1277.5.camel@dirt.local> <476BDA35.3050604@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1198254098.8792.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 20:52 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Geoff Reedy wrote: > > I am planning to create packages for the Scala programming language[1] > > for Fedora. The license for Scala[2] seems to be similar to the BSD > > license, but as suggested by the Licensing page in the fedora wiki I'm > > sending the details to this list for approval. > > This is indeed a variant of the standard 3-clause BSD license with no > significant deviations. Yep. Just use "BSD" for the License text field. ~spot