From theBohemian at gmx.net Wed May 7 08:07:35 2008 From: theBohemian at gmx.net (Robert Schuster) Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 10:07:35 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] parts of GLX under non-free licenses In-Reply-To: <20080503012945.d49442b8.hjensen@gmx.de> References: <20080503012945.d49442b8.hjensen@gmx.de> Message-ID: <48216347.5010401@gmx.net> Hi, the Ubuntu-based gNewSense distribution removed parts of GLX because of a license issue[0]. They did so because SGI Public License and SGI Free Software License B are non-free. According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing this is also true for Fedora and the JOGL package was removed because of it. It is known that Debian is aware of the problem since 2003 but has not come up with a solution. The removal of the files breaks apps like compiz-fusion and the like. Is this problem solved in Fedora? If not it might be good if we can get in contact with the copyright holder of those files and ask for a relicensing. Regards Robert [0] - http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00103 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 252 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed May 7 12:26:21 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 08:26:21 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] parts of GLX under non-free licenses In-Reply-To: <48216347.5010401@gmx.net> References: <20080503012945.d49442b8.hjensen@gmx.de> <48216347.5010401@gmx.net> Message-ID: <1210163181.15217.67.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 10:07 +0200, Robert Schuster wrote: > It is known that Debian is aware of the problem since 2003 but has not > come up with a solution. We're aware of this issue, and it is currently under investigation internally. > Is this problem solved in Fedora? Not at this time. We've not allowed any new code into Fedora under the GLX or Free B licenses, but that is a stopgap, not a solution. > If not it might be good if we can get in contact with the copyright > holder of those files and ask for a relicensing. The copyright holder of those files is not interested in relicensing. ~spot From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Thu May 8 17:00:49 2008 From: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mamoru Tasaka) Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 02:00:49 +0900 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] bug 426867: pre-built binaries for bootstrapping In-Reply-To: <48216347.5010401@gmx.net> References: <20080503012945.d49442b8.hjensen@gmx.de> <48216347.5010401@gmx.net> Message-ID: <482331C1.6090901@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Hi: I am now trying to review scala [1]. This is Java related package and the submitter says that pre-built binaries are needed for bootstrapping. The submitter seems to have asked this issue once [2], however it seems no conclusion is made then. The srpm and the rebuilt binary rpms (on dist-f9-updates-candidate) can be downloaded from [3]. Would you judge if this situation can be allowed for Fedora? Regards, Mamoru [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426867 [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-January/msg00074.html [3] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/scratch/mtasaka/task_594276/ From lmacken at redhat.com Fri May 16 19:58:16 2008 From: lmacken at redhat.com (Luke Macken) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 15:58:16 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] TrueCrypt Message-ID: <20080516195816.GB6685@x300.bos.redhat.com> Hi, I'm wondering if the latest TrueCrypt license is acceptable for Fedora. http://www.truecrypt.org/legal/license I know there have been issues with various ambiguities in the past, but the rumor on the street is that their license has drastically improved. Thanks, luke From tmz at pobox.com Fri May 16 20:20:46 2008 From: tmz at pobox.com (Todd Zullinger) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 16:20:46 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] TrueCrypt In-Reply-To: <20080516195816.GB6685@x300.bos.redhat.com> References: <20080516195816.GB6685@x300.bos.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20080516202046.GB27590@inocybe.teonanacatl.org> Luke Macken wrote: > I'm wondering if the latest TrueCrypt license is acceptable for > Fedora. > > http://www.truecrypt.org/legal/license > > I know there have been issues with various ambiguities in the past, > but the rumor on the street is that their license has drastically > improved. I think this part make it unacceptable (I didn't even look much further): II. Terms and Conditions for Use, Copying, and Distribution 1. You may copy and/or distribute This Product, provided that You do not modify This Product (for terms and conditions for copying and distribution of modified versions of This Product, see Chapter III) Chapter III does allow modified versions to be distributed if they are not called Truecrypt, along with a number of other requirements. And there is an exclusion for operating system vendors, but that still requires unmodified source to be what is built. It don't smell like a free nor open-source software license to me. :) -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First, God created idiots. That was just for practice. Then He created school boards. -- Mark Twain -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 542 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri May 16 20:31:31 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 16:31:31 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] TrueCrypt In-Reply-To: <20080516202046.GB27590@inocybe.teonanacatl.org> References: <20080516195816.GB6685@x300.bos.redhat.com> <20080516202046.GB27590@inocybe.teonanacatl.org> Message-ID: <1210969891.3801.113.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 16:20 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: > Chapter III does allow modified versions to be distributed if they are > not called Truecrypt, along with a number of other requirements. And > there is an exclusion for operating system vendors, but that still > requires unmodified source to be what is built. > > It don't smell like a free nor open-source software license to me. :) Yeah, thats a really crappy provision. Software we can't patch is difficult to maintain. The documentation requirements in III.1.b are overbearing and III.1.d are practically impossible for us to meet as worded. Of course, we don't have to comply by anything in III.1, because Fedora is an "operating system vendor", I suppose, but this license spins in loops on itself. I'm betting it comes back as non-free, but I'll send it along for formal judgement. ~spot From dchen at redhat.com Fri May 23 01:28:14 2008 From: dchen at redhat.com (Ding-Yi Chen) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:28:14 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] libmad Message-ID: <48361DAE.9020104@redhat.com> Hi, Just wondering whether libmad (http://www.underbit.com/products/mad/) can be included in fedora. It is GPL, but it is also an implementation of MP3. So I am not sure whether we should include it in Fedora. Regards, Ding-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 Fri May 23 12:14:39 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 08:14:39 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] libmad In-Reply-To: <48361DAE.9020104@redhat.com> References: <48361DAE.9020104@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1211544879.15410.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 11:28 +1000, Ding-Yi Chen wrote: > Hi, > > Just wondering whether libmad (http://www.underbit.com/products/mad/) > can be included in fedora. It is GPL, but it is also an implementation > of MP3. > So I am not sure whether we should include it in Fedora. Nope. MP3 is heavily patented, and the patent holder will not give a grant for us to use it in Fedora. ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri May 23 23:08:08 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 04:38:08 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FOSSology Message-ID: <48374E58.5060000@fedoraproject.org> Hi, Has anyone here looked at FOSSology? Seems a useful license analysing tool, we can take advantage of. http://fossology.org/about_us Rahul From jonstanley at gmail.com Fri May 23 23:32:24 2008 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 19:32:24 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GPLv1 license tag? Message-ID: What would the proper license tag be for something that is licensed under GPLv1 (only)? I don't see such a thing on the license page. (this is for the cleanup project and the package is 'ncview'). I imagine that this would be just GPLv1, right? From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri May 23 23:41:39 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 05:11:39 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GPLv1 license tag? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48375633.3060802@fedoraproject.org> Jon Stanley wrote: > What would the proper license tag be for something that is licensed > under GPLv1 (only)? I don't see such a thing on the license page. > (this is for the cleanup project and the package is 'ncview'). I > imagine that this would be just GPLv1, right? I think this is the first time we come across GPLv1 licensed software for Fedora but yes the logical choice is GPLv1 as the license tag. Rahul From tmz at pobox.com Sat May 24 00:03:32 2008 From: tmz at pobox.com (Todd Zullinger) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 20:03:32 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GPLv1 license tag? In-Reply-To: <48375633.3060802@fedoraproject.org> References: <48375633.3060802@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20080524000331.GQ3216@inocybe.teonanacatl.org> Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> What would the proper license tag be for something that is licensed >> under GPLv1 (only)? I don't see such a thing on the license page. >> (this is for the cleanup project and the package is 'ncview'). I >> imagine that this would be just GPLv1, right? > > I think this is the first time we come across GPLv1 licensed > software for Fedora but yes the logical choice is GPLv1 as the > license tag. It seems so, but then, we currently use GPL+ for GPLv1 or later. So that's a bit strange. :/ Out of curiosity, what package is this? -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The greatest gift you can give another is the purity of your attention. -- Richard Moss, M.D. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 542 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat May 24 00:06:18 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 05:36:18 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GPLv1 license tag? In-Reply-To: <20080524000331.GQ3216@inocybe.teonanacatl.org> References: <48375633.3060802@fedoraproject.org> <20080524000331.GQ3216@inocybe.teonanacatl.org> Message-ID: <48375BFA.5020201@fedoraproject.org> Todd Zullinger wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>> What would the proper license tag be for something that is licensed >>> under GPLv1 (only)? I don't see such a thing on the license page. >>> (this is for the cleanup project and the package is 'ncview'). I >>> imagine that this would be just GPLv1, right? >> I think this is the first time we come across GPLv1 licensed >> software for Fedora but yes the logical choice is GPLv1 as the >> license tag. > > It seems so, but then, we currently use GPL+ for GPLv1 or later. So > that's a bit strange. :/ > > Out of curiosity, what package is this? ncview as mentioned in OP's mail. Rahul From jonstanley at gmail.com Sat May 24 01:07:02 2008 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 21:07:02 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] And another license Message-ID: This looks possibly MIT-ish to me. Can someone confirm? (this is for scrip) ! Copyright (c) 1997, 1998 the Regents of the University of ! California. ! ! Unless otherwise indicated, this software has been authored ! by an employee or employees of the University of California, ! operator of the Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract ! No. W-7405-ENG-36 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. ! Government has rights to use, reproduce, and distribute this ! software. The public may copy and use this software without ! charge, provided that this Notice and any statement of authorship ! are reproduced on all copies. Neither the Government nor the ! University makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes ! any liability or responsibility for the use of this software. ! !*********************************************************************** -- Jon Stanley Fedora Bug Wrangler jstanley at fedoraproject.org From jwboyer at gmail.com Sat May 24 12:12:37 2008 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 07:12:37 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] And another license In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080524071237.0d6a52bc@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Fri, 23 May 2008 21:07:02 -0400 "Jon Stanley" wrote: > This looks possibly MIT-ish to me. Can someone confirm? (this is for scrip) > > ! Copyright (c) 1997, 1998 the Regents of the University of > ! California. > ! > ! Unless otherwise indicated, this software has been authored > ! by an employee or employees of the University of California, > ! operator of the Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract > ! No. W-7405-ENG-36 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. > ! Government has rights to use, reproduce, and distribute this > ! software. The public may copy and use this software without > ! charge, provided that this Notice and any statement of authorship > ! are reproduced on all copies. Neither the Government nor the > ! University makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes > ! any liability or responsibility for the use of this software. The public isn't explicitly granted the right to modify. josh