From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Nov 1 12:01:06 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:01:06 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Please check STIX font license Message-ID: <1193918466.5418.5.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Please check and approve the STIX font license and add it to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Fonts/Good (displayed as click-through there: http://www.aip.org/stixfonts/font_download.jsp ) It's needed for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361441 Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 13:42:24 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:42:24 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Please check STIX font license In-Reply-To: <1193918466.5418.5.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <1193918466.5418.5.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1193924544.21765.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 13:01 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Please check and approve the STIX font license and add it to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Fonts/Good > > (displayed as click-through there: > http://www.aip.org/stixfonts/font_download.jsp ) > > It's needed for > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361441 > Looks good. Added it to the list. Use "STIX" as the License short identifier. ~spot From paul at city-fan.org Fri Nov 2 09:18:09 2007 From: paul at city-fan.org (Paul Howarth) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:18:09 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Sendmail license In-Reply-To: <46D55DFA.3050402@city-fan.org> References: <46D55DFA.3050402@city-fan.org> Message-ID: <472AEB51.8080301@city-fan.org> The sendmail license (http://www.sendmail.org/ftp/LICENSE) is not currently listed in the "Good licenses" list, nor is it listed on the FSF "list of licenses" page. However, sendmail *is* listed in the FSF directory of free software (http://directory.fsf.org/sendmail.html). Please can the sendmail license be added to the good licenses list? Cheers, Paul. From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Nov 2 11:40:04 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 07:40:04 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Sendmail license In-Reply-To: <472AEB51.8080301@city-fan.org> References: <46D55DFA.3050402@city-fan.org> <472AEB51.8080301@city-fan.org> Message-ID: <1194003604.21765.117.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 09:18 +0000, Paul Howarth wrote: > The sendmail license (http://www.sendmail.org/ftp/LICENSE) is not > currently listed in the "Good licenses" list, nor is it listed on the > FSF "list of licenses" page. However, sendmail *is* listed in the FSF > directory of free software (http://directory.fsf.org/sendmail.html). > > Please can the sendmail license be added to the good licenses list? Believe it or not, this license is still pending review from the FSF since the first time you asked. :/ I've reminded them that we'd like to know the answer. ~spot From dmalcolm at redhat.com Mon Nov 12 21:18:44 2007 From: dmalcolm at redhat.com (David Malcolm) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:18:44 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] rdflib license Message-ID: <1194902324.3871.17.camel@cassandra.boston.redhat.com> I'm packaging rdflib ( http://rdflib.net/ ); what should the specfile License: field read? License follows inline:, appears to me to be a variant of 3-clause BSD: LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR RDFLIB 0.9.0 THROUGH 2.4.0 ------------------------------------------------ Copyright (c) 2002-2006, Daniel Krech, http://eikeon.com/ All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of Daniel Krech nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Nov 12 21:25:21 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:25:21 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] rdflib license In-Reply-To: <1194902324.3871.17.camel@cassandra.boston.redhat.com> References: <1194902324.3871.17.camel@cassandra.boston.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1194902721.5309.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 16:18 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > I'm packaging rdflib ( http://rdflib.net/ ); what should the specfile > License: field read? > > License follows inline:, appears to me to be a variant of 3-clause BSD: It's literal 3-clause BSD. Including the amusing cut and paste: "Neither the name of Daniel Krech nor the names of its contributors" ... normally, you'd see "rdflib" there, not "Daniel Krech". I suppose he could have contributors. ;) But I digress. Use "License: BSD" ~spot From linville at tuxdriver.com Tue Nov 13 18:56:19 2007 From: linville at tuxdriver.com (John W. Linville) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:56:19 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fwd: consider a b43-firmware package like this? Message-ID: <20071113185619.GB20957@tuxdriver.com> I sent this to the rpmfusion-developers list yesterday. It occurred to me that it might be worth sending here too... So, is there any chance that the wording below justifies or leads to approval of a b43-firwmare package in the official Fedora repository? If so, then I will cease my efforts to get such a package into RPM Fusion. It certainly would be better for our users to have these packages in the main repository rather than in a 3rd party one. Thanks for your consideration! John P.S. Regarding my reference to "any Fedora Authority", all my Fedora project inquiries thus far have been 1:1 or 1:few between me and the interested parties. This is my first formal inquiry on this issue. ----- Forwarded message from "John W. Linville" ----- > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:01:27 -0500 > From: "John W. Linville" > To: rpmfusion-developers at lists.rpmfusion.org > Subject: consider a b43-firmware package like this? > > Greetings, > > Probably some of you know my name and my role with Fedora and the > Linux kernel. If not, then suffice it to say that I am very interested > in having people get wireless working as easily as possible. > > One problem that often hinders users in that regard is firmware for > their wireless devices. Fortunately, Fedora has accepted firmware > packages in the main repository for some time. And, we have had > good success with getting firmware made available under suitable > licenses for Fedora. Still, one particular vendor has been non- > (but not necessarily anti-)cooperative: Broadcom. This is a problem, > as their devices are quite common. > > The "approved" firmware for use with the b43 and b43legacy drivers > comes from the OpenWRT website, where it is provided as part of larger > MIPS binaries. AFAIK Broadcom has never bothered OpenWRT about this, > yet neither have they offered an explicitly stated license for this > practice. > > The MIPS binaries from the OpenWRT site in turn come from packages > distributed by wireless AP vendors in order to comply with the GPL. > The MIPS binaries are pre-compiled in those packages, but they are > clearly intended to be linked into Linux kernels to run on those APs. > In my mind, this at least implies intent that it is alright to > redistribute these binaries. > > So, I have created packages which use these AP vendor's GPL packages as > sources, extract the MIPS binaries, then further extract the wireless > firmware using b43-fwcutter. It is a bit odd in that the src.rpm file > (containing the AP vendor code) is huge, while the binary rpm file > is tiny. But, they work just fine. :-) I have packages for both > b43 and b43legacy. I will include the COPYING file I composed for > inclusion in the b43 firmware package below. I have a similar one for > the b43legacy package. > > Perhaps not surprisingly, the string of arguments above has yet to > sway any Fedora authority to bless these packages. So I wonder, > is the case above strong enough to merit including such packages in > RPM Fusion? If that seems likely, then I'll be happy to submit the > packages for your review. Obviously this would seem to belong in the > "non free" section... > > Thanks, > > John > > P.S. COPYING file from the b43-firmware package below. (The "by > permission of" bit was suggested by someone else -- I'm happy to > augment it or remove it as anyone might suggest...) > > --- > > Redistributed by permission of Broadcom in binary form only, no > modifications permitted. > > The source archive for this package was reached through a link at > the following URL: > > http://www.linksys.com/gpl/ > > The text at that location reads as follows: > > GPL Code Center > > The source code files available on this page have been provided > under one or more open source licenses. Select your Linksys > product model and a firmware version from the list below to > download the source code library. > > The source code found here is complete to the best of > Linksys? knowledge. If you believe any additional > source code files should be provided under the > applicable open source license, please contact Linksys at > linksys-opensource at linksys.com and provide in detail the > product or code module in question. Linksys is committed to > meeting the requirements of the open source licenses including > the GNU General Public License (GPL) and will make all required > source code available. > > The following URL is the direct link to the archive used as the source > of this package: > > ftp://ftp.linksys.com/opensourcecode/wrt350n/1.03.2/WRT350N_v1.03.2_US.tgz > > The source archive was specifically provided by Linksys in order to > fulfill obligations arising from distribution of software licensed > under the GPL and other open source licenses. Given that fact, > it is reasonable to infer that redistribution of the archive itself > and the contents of that archive is accepted by Linksys, Broadcom, > and any other copyright holders. > -- > John W. Linville > linville at tuxdriver.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- John W. Linville linville at tuxdriver.com From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Nov 13 20:59:54 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:59:54 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fwd: consider a b43-firmware package like this? In-Reply-To: <20071113185619.GB20957@tuxdriver.com> References: <20071113185619.GB20957@tuxdriver.com> Message-ID: <1194987594.25279.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 13:56 -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > I sent this to the rpmfusion-developers list yesterday. It occurred > to me that it might be worth sending here too... > > So, is there any chance that the wording below justifies or leads to > approval of a b43-firwmare package in the official Fedora repository? > If so, then I will cease my efforts to get such a package into RPM > Fusion. It certainly would be better for our users to have these > packages in the main repository rather than in a 3rd party one. Yep. I think it does. Linksys is clearly distributing those tarballs under the terms of the GPL, which means that we can freely redistribute them under that license. Also, the drivers themselves in that tarball are marked as License=GPL (assuming I'm looking at the correct subfiles): [spot at localhost linux]$ strings bcm57xx.o |grep license license=GPL The best part is that I know that RH Legal has signed off on this, so we're good to go ahead and do it. But, please don't say that we're doing this with Broadcom's permission, because while that may be implicitly correct, it is not explicitly true. ~spot From sergio.pasra at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 18:53:29 2007 From: sergio.pasra at gmail.com (Sergio Pascual) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:53:29 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Question about the ACE TAO license Message-ID: <89b36810711151053x39a5174au45bd613d97091164@mail.gmail.com> Hello, I'm planning to package ACE+TAO (http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE.html). My question is about (of course) the license. The license text can be found in the following URL http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE-copying.html and in the source code. It seems a free software license to me (but I'm not an expert...) Is this license valid for fedora? Regards, Sergio -- Sergio Pascual Ram?rez From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Nov 15 18:59:11 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:59:11 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Question about the ACE TAO license In-Reply-To: <89b36810711151053x39a5174au45bd613d97091164@mail.gmail.com> References: <89b36810711151053x39a5174au45bd613d97091164@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1195153151.3726.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 19:53 +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote: > Hello, I'm planning to package ACE+TAO > (http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE.html). > > My question is about (of course) the license. The license text can be > found in the following URL > http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE-copying.html and in the source > code. It seems a free software license to me (but I'm not an > expert...) > Is this license valid for fedora? So, a few points worth making: A few weeks ago, I decided that I would package ACE+TAO, and I came across someone who had already done the packaging work (Ken Sedgwick). I asked him if he would be interested in maintaining it in Fedora, and he was, but as you've noticed, the license is an issue. The ACE+TAO license (properly, the DOC license), has a rather unique clause in which it asks you to completely surrender your copyright interests in your submissions. Neither I, nor the FSF had ever seen anything like that before, and they've been considering whether the license is free or not since then. I've contacted the license author, and he's willing to discuss it with the FSF, and possibly make changes to the license, but I've not heard anything back on this. Ken's packages are here: http://dist.bonsai.com/ken/ace_tao_rpm/ ~spot From andy at smile.org.ua Tue Nov 20 08:58:42 2007 From: andy at smile.org.ua (Andy Shevchenko) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:58:42 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] UniConvertor: is it possible to include to Fedora? Message-ID: <20071120085842.GA9545@serv.smile.org.ua> Hi! I'd like to add UniConvertor[1] to the Fedora. However I think the legal issues are may present. Who could comment that code? Possible, I wrote to the wrong list? [1] Project page: http://sk1project.org/modules.php?name=Products&product=uniconvertor Prepared package: ftp://toaster.asplinux.com.ua/pub/people/andy/extras/uniconvertor-1.0.0-1.fc7.src.rpm -- With best regards, Andy Shevchenko. mailto: andy at smile.org.ua -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Nov 20 16:25:07 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:25:07 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] UniConvertor: is it possible to include to Fedora? In-Reply-To: <20071120085842.GA9545@serv.smile.org.ua> References: <20071120085842.GA9545@serv.smile.org.ua> Message-ID: <1195575907.27963.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 10:58 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to add UniConvertor[1] to the Fedora. > However I think the legal issues are may present. > Who could comment that code? > > Possible, I wrote to the wrong list? > > [1] > Project page: http://sk1project.org/modules.php?name=Products&product=uniconvertor > Prepared package: ftp://toaster.asplinux.com.ua/pub/people/andy/extras/uniconvertor-1.0.0-1.fc7.src.rpm This is fine, but the proper license tag is: License: LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ and MIT ~spot From fab at fedoraproject.org Tue Nov 20 23:18:26 2007 From: fab at fedoraproject.org (Fabian Affolter) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:18:26 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Status of EULA Fedora 8 Message-ID: <47436B42.2030402@fedoraproject.org> Hi all, Does anybody know something about the EULA for Fedora 8 and why it's not public? Two people asked me about that agreement because I edited the wiki page a while ago. Thanks Regards, Fabian From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Nov 26 14:58:05 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:58:05 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist Message-ID: <14392.192.54.193.53.1196089085.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> >> Kerkis > > There is a Kerkis package for TeX (tetex-font-kerkis). Nowadays, the > author of this font publishes TTF and OTF files, quite suitable for > on-screen display. The license, however, is a bit ambiguous, possibly > even a removal candidate. http://iris.math.aegean.gr/kerkis/ (see the > License subsection). This one should have been passed through fedora-legal before inclusion. Everyone please do not package any font with a new license without getting its license approved on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Legal -- Nicolas Mailhot From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Nov 26 15:13:03 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:13:03 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <14392.192.54.193.53.1196089085.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <14392.192.54.193.53.1196089085.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1196089983.15604.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 15:58 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > >> Kerkis > > > > There is a Kerkis package for TeX (tetex-font-kerkis). Nowadays, the > > author of this font publishes TTF and OTF files, quite suitable for > > on-screen display. The license, however, is a bit ambiguous, possibly > > even a removal candidate. http://iris.math.aegean.gr/kerkis/ (see the > > License subsection). > > This one should have been passed through fedora-legal before > inclusion. Definitely. That license is waaaay too vague as is. We'd need to know if: 1. Modification is permitted 2. Redistribution is permitted (this is implied, but not explicitly granted) 3. Redistribution in embedded documents is permitted That's just for starters. The commercial copyright "advertising" clause is also painfully vague. Someone motivated (and likely, fluent in greek), should email the copyright holders and suggest that they either clarify their license, or consider relicensing it with an established free license (e.g. the OFL). ~spot From paskalis at di.uoa.gr Mon Nov 26 15:24:11 2007 From: paskalis at di.uoa.gr (Sarantis Paskalis) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:24:11 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <1196089983.15604.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <14392.192.54.193.53.1196089085.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1196089983.15604.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20071126152411.GC21536@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:13:03AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 15:58 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > >> Kerkis > > > > > > There is a Kerkis package for TeX (tetex-font-kerkis). Nowadays, the > > > author of this font publishes TTF and OTF files, quite suitable for > > > on-screen display. The license, however, is a bit ambiguous, possibly > > > even a removal candidate. http://iris.math.aegean.gr/kerkis/ (see the > > > License subsection). > > > > This one should have been passed through fedora-legal before > > inclusion. > > Definitely. That license is waaaay too vague as is. > > We'd need to know if: > > 1. Modification is permitted > 2. Redistribution is permitted (this is implied, but not explicitly > granted) > 3. Redistribution in embedded documents is permitted > > That's just for starters. The commercial copyright "advertising" clause > is also painfully vague. > > Someone motivated (and likely, fluent in greek), should email the > copyright holders and suggest that they either clarify their license, or > consider relicensing it with an established free license (e.g. the OFL). I will contact the author to clarify the above. Thanks for the guidelines. -- Sarantis From paskalis at di.uoa.gr Mon Nov 26 15:10:56 2007 From: paskalis at di.uoa.gr (Sarantis Paskalis) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:10:56 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <14392.192.54.193.53.1196089085.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <14392.192.54.193.53.1196089085.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20071126151056.GA21462@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 03:58:05PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > >> Kerkis > > > > There is a Kerkis package for TeX (tetex-font-kerkis). Nowadays, the > > author of this font publishes TTF and OTF files, quite suitable for > > on-screen display. The license, however, is a bit ambiguous, possibly > > even a removal candidate. http://iris.math.aegean.gr/kerkis/ (see the > > License subsection). > > This one should have been passed through fedora-legal before > inclusion. Everyone please do not package any font with a new license > without getting its license approved on > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Legal I actually inherited the package during the transfer from fedora.us and did not double-check the license until a little ago. I will however pass this through legal now. -- Sarantis From moyogo at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 22:31:03 2007 From: moyogo at gmail.com (Denis Jacquerye) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:31:03 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <20071126152411.GC21536@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> References: <14392.192.54.193.53.1196089085.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1196089983.15604.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20071126152411.GC21536@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> Message-ID: <8ebc61110711261431o1d46934cr1e1a570cc914e467@mail.gmail.com> On Nov 26, 2007 4:24 PM, Sarantis Paskalis wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:13:03AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 15:58 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > >> Kerkis > > > > > > > > There is a Kerkis package for TeX (tetex-font-kerkis). Nowadays, the > > > > author of this font publishes TTF and OTF files, quite suitable for > > > > on-screen display. The license, however, is a bit ambiguous, possibly > > > > even a removal candidate. http://iris.math.aegean.gr/kerkis/ (see the > > > > License subsection). > > > > > > This one should have been passed through fedora-legal before > > > inclusion. > > > > Definitely. That license is waaaay too vague as is. > > > > We'd need to know if: > > > > 1. Modification is permitted > > 2. Redistribution is permitted (this is implied, but not explicitly > > granted) > > 3. Redistribution in embedded documents is permitted > > > > That's just for starters. The commercial copyright "advertising" clause > > is also painfully vague. > > > > Someone motivated (and likely, fluent in greek), should email the > > copyright holders and suggest that they either clarify their license, or > > consider relicensing it with an established free license (e.g. the OFL). > > I will contact the author to clarify the above. Thanks for the > guidelines. > The outlines of Kerkis fonts look like those of URW Bookman and URW Gothic. Kerkis has different a style of figures than URW Bookman and has more character coverage. If Kerkis fonts are derivatives of URW's gsfonts, then the license should be the same as gsfonts. URW Bookman and URW Gothic are GPL'ed. Cheers -- Denis Moyogo Jacquerye --- http://home.sus.mcgill.ca/~moyogo Nk?t? ya Kong? m?bal? --- http://info-langues-congo.1sd.org/ DejaVu fonts --- http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/ Unicode (UTF-8) From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Nov 26 22:37:54 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:37:54 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <8ebc61110711261431o1d46934cr1e1a570cc914e467@mail.gmail.com> References: <14392.192.54.193.53.1196089085.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1196089983.15604.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20071126152411.GC21536@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> <8ebc61110711261431o1d46934cr1e1a570cc914e467@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1196116674.3229.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 23:31 +0100, Denis Jacquerye wrote: > The outlines of Kerkis fonts look like those of URW Bookman and URW > Gothic. Kerkis has different a style of figures than URW Bookman and > has more character coverage. > If Kerkis fonts are derivatives of URW's gsfonts, then the license > should be the same as gsfonts. URW Bookman and URW Gothic are GPL'ed. This is also a good point to bring up with the Kerkis copyright holders. ~spot From paskalis at di.uoa.gr Mon Nov 26 21:11:31 2007 From: paskalis at di.uoa.gr (Sarantis Paskalis) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:11:31 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <20071126152411.GC21536@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> References: <14392.192.54.193.53.1196089085.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1196089983.15604.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20071126152411.GC21536@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> Message-ID: <474B3683.1040000@di.uoa.gr> Sarantis Paskalis wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:13:03AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: >> On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 15:58 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >>>>> Kerkis >>>> There is a Kerkis package for TeX (tetex-font-kerkis). Nowadays, the >>>> author of this font publishes TTF and OTF files, quite suitable for >>>> on-screen display. The license, however, is a bit ambiguous, possibly >>>> even a removal candidate. http://iris.math.aegean.gr/kerkis/ (see the >>>> License subsection). >>> This one should have been passed through fedora-legal before >>> inclusion. >> Definitely. That license is waaaay too vague as is. >> >> We'd need to know if: >> >> 1. Modification is permitted >> 2. Redistribution is permitted (this is implied, but not explicitly >> granted) >> 3. Redistribution in embedded documents is permitted >> >> That's just for starters. The commercial copyright "advertising" clause >> is also painfully vague. >> >> Someone motivated (and likely, fluent in greek), should email the >> copyright holders and suggest that they either clarify their license, or >> consider relicensing it with an established free license (e.g. the OFL). > > I will contact the author to clarify the above. Thanks for the > guidelines. And here is the gist of the communication with the maintainer. The current license of the font is in the License.txt file in CTAN: http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/fonts/greek/kerkis/License.txt The Copyright of the fonts belongs to the The Department of Mathematics of the University of the Aegean, Karlovassi, Samos, Greece If you want to use this font family in commercial work (like in books), we strongly request that you include in the Copyright section the fact that you are using "Kerkis (C) Department of Mathematics, University of the Aegean". "The Kerkis fonts and kerkis.sty are licensed under the LaTeX Project Public License, version 1.3c or later. See http://www.latex-project.org/lppl." He also gave positive answers to the primary questions and has relaxed the advertising clause (from the former *must* to *strong request*). Is there something else that needs to be communicated or can we consider this font OK? Thanks, -- Sarantis From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Nov 27 00:35:19 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:35:19 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <474B3683.1040000@di.uoa.gr> References: <14392.192.54.193.53.1196089085.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1196089983.15604.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20071126152411.GC21536@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> <474B3683.1040000@di.uoa.gr> Message-ID: <1196123719.3229.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 23:11 +0200, Sarantis Paskalis wrote: > "The Kerkis fonts and kerkis.sty are licensed under the LaTeX Project > Public License, version 1.3c or later. See > http://www.latex-project.org/lppl." Great! Include a copy of that License.txt when you package it up, and you're fine. Thanks for doing the work on this, ~spot From dingyichen at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 06:27:19 2007 From: dingyichen at gmail.com (Ding-Yi Chen) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:27:19 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] What should I put in License field in SPEC file. Message-ID: <474FAD47.3000008@gmail.com> Hi, When doing man-pages-es, I encountered following copyright announcement: * COPYRIGHTS These man pages come under various copyrights. All are freely distributable when the nroff source is included. ========================================================== It obviously is not included in the Fedora-license list at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing What should I put in the license field in SPEC file? Regards, Ding-Yi Chen From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Nov 30 14:23:46 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:23:46 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] DJB's software components Message-ID: <1196432626.9238.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> 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. Thanks, ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Nov 30 16:28:01 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:28:01 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] DJB's software components In-Reply-To: <1196432626.9238.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1196432626.9238.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1196440081.9238.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:23 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > 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. And the answer is that we are fine to pick these up. Hold lifted. ~spot