From caolanm at redhat.com Fri Feb 6 16:04:27 2009 From: caolanm at redhat.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Caol=E1n?= McNamara) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:04:27 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Does "X is completely free" cut it as acceptable for "Public Domain" ? Message-ID: <1233936267.2683.215.camel@Vain> Well, actually the original Swedish text is "Synonymerna ?r helt fria" Source: http://lexin2.nada.kth.se/synpairs.xml (see top for that release notice) Project: http://lexin2.nada.kth.se/synlex.html English Paper about it: http://www.nada.kth.se/theory/projects/infomat/rapporter/kannrosell05.pdf C. From roozbeh at gmail.com Sat Feb 7 08:16:14 2009 From: roozbeh at gmail.com (Roozbeh Pournader) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 00:16:14 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: policy on shipping/using flags In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > * Presently, the Unicode consortium is considering a proposal to > encode various symbols (called emoji) used in Japanese cellphones in > the Unicode Standard. This very large set includes flags of a few > countries, like the flag of the People's Republic of China: > > http://www.unicode.org/~scherer/emoji4unicode/snapshot/utc.html#e-4E5 > [warning: hundreds of small icons on the page] > > From what I can tell, the proposal has a very high chance of > acceptance, and those flags will become Unicode characters. When fonts > we ship start to include glyphs for such flags, what do we do? Do we > remove them from the fonts when shipping them? I am just back from the Unicode Technical Committee meeting. During the emoji discussions, as a GNOME's representatives to Unicode, I mentioned some of the controversial issues that will raise if Unicode encodes flags. The committee agreed to not encode those characters as flags, but only as place-holder characters for compatibility with Japanese telephone company standards. The characters are now only called Emoji Symbol GB, Emoji Symbol CN, Emoji Symbol RU, etc, and their glyphs are just the two letters in a dashed box, like this: http://unicode.org/~scherer/emoji4unicode/fontimg/AEmoji_E4ED.png So, no worries on this part of the flags issue anymore. Roozbeh From rjones at redhat.com Sun Feb 8 15:43:01 2009 From: rjones at redhat.com (Richard W.M. Jones) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 15:43:01 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] What are the implications of a license which is GPL incompatible? Message-ID: <20090208154301.GA20133@amd.home.annexia.org> I've read the FAQ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#What_does_it_mean_when_a_license_is_listed_as_.22GPLv2_compat.22_or_.22GPLv3_compatible.22.3F but I'm unclear what it means if a license is *IN*compatible with the GPL. As an example, suppose I have a program which is GPLv2+, and it requires a library which is (for example) APSL2.0. Is the linking permitted? Can I distribute the result as a binary (with an offer of source) or do end-users have to link it themselves? Is there a difference between dynamic and static linking? More generally about the licenses with "NO" in the GPL* Compat columns here, what does that stop me from doing? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Software_License_List Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v From tcallawa at redhat.com Sun Feb 8 18:51:08 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 13:51:08 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] What are the implications of a license which is GPL incompatible? In-Reply-To: <20090208154301.GA20133@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20090208154301.GA20133@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <498F299C.6010000@redhat.com> On 2009-02-08 at 10:43:01 -0500, "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote: > I've read the FAQ > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#What_does_it_mean_when_a_license_is_listed_as_.22GPLv2_compat.22_or_.22GPLv3_compatible.22.3F > but I'm unclear what it means if a license is *IN*compatible with the > GPL. > > As an example, suppose I have a program which is GPLv2+, and it > requires a library which is (for example) APSL2.0. Is the linking > permitted? Can I distribute the result as a binary (with an offer of > source) or do end-users have to link it themselves? Is there a > difference between dynamic and static linking? The FSF's interpretation is that linking (either dynamic or static) requires license compatibility. Quoting from their FAQ: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license? Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library. (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL) They do not make a distinction between dynamic and static linking. Now, this may not always be accurate, there is no case law either way, but in general, it is better to assume the worst than hope for the best in such situations. If you're the copyright holder for the GPLv2+ code base, you can add an exception, as described here: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs You probably want to have someone look over any exception text that you add. Hope that helps, ~spot From bjohnson80498 at gmail.com Mon Feb 9 17:39:15 2009 From: bjohnson80498 at gmail.com (Bernard Johnson) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:39:15 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] libzdb - A small, fast, and easy to use database API Message-ID: Can I get someone to chime in on the license questions raised here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474044 From chkr at plauener.de Thu Feb 12 23:11:31 2009 From: chkr at plauener.de (Christian Krause) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:11:31 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] package with data file from unicode.org Message-ID: <4994ACA3.2030404@plauener.de> Hi, I'm currently preparing a package ("anki") for inclusion which has one file which falls under the "UNICODE, INC. LICENSE AGREEMENT - DATA FILES AND SOFTWARE" license available here: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html#Exhibit1 . Otherwise the package contains only GPLv3+ source. I have two questions: 1. What would be the correct License: entry in the spec file? 2. Is it necessary to provide the full text of this license? The original source only mentions the URL above. If yes: in both src.rpm and the binary rpm? Best regards, Christian From tibbs at math.uh.edu Thu Feb 12 23:18:34 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:18:34 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] package with data file from unicode.org In-Reply-To: <4994ACA3.2030404@plauener.de> (Christian Krause's message of "Fri\, 13 Feb 2009 00\:11\:31 +0100") References: <4994ACA3.2030404@plauener.de> Message-ID: >>>>> "CK" == Christian Krause writes: CK> http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html#Exhibit1 Which is conveniently on our licensing pages as MIT: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_without_sublicense_.28Unicode.29 CK> Otherwise the package contains only GPLv3+ source. I have two CK> questions: What would be the correct License: entry in the spec CK> file? "GPLv3+ and MIT" if the MIT-licensed data files are included directly into the package; I suppose just GPLv3+ if they are somehow compiled into a binary with the GPL code. If the former, also include a comment in the spec indicating which files are under which license. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines for more info. CK> Is it necessary to provide the full text of this license? It is only mandatory to include the license text in the package if it is included within the upstream tarball. - J< From chkr at plauener.de Sun Feb 15 17:20:12 2009 From: chkr at plauener.de (Christian Krause) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:20:12 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] package with data file from unicode.org In-Reply-To: References: <4994ACA3.2030404@plauener.de> Message-ID: <49984ECC.9080809@plauener.de> Hi Jason, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > CK> Otherwise the package contains only GPLv3+ source. I have two > CK> questions: What would be the correct License: entry in the spec > CK> file? > > "GPLv3+ and MIT" if the MIT-licensed data files are included directly > into the package; I suppose just GPLv3+ if they are somehow compiled > into a binary with the GPL code. If the former, also include a > comment in the spec indicating which files are under which license. > See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines for > more info Thank you very much for the information. I've updated the spec accordingly. I'm looking forward that somebody reviews my new package. ;-) Best regards, Christian From rjones at redhat.com Mon Feb 16 07:52:43 2009 From: rjones at redhat.com (Richard W.M. Jones) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:52:43 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] APSL 1.0 Message-ID: <20090216075243.GA15253@amd.home.annexia.org> APSL 1.0 is listed in Bad Licenses. Is this because it is non-free, or because it was deprecated and replaced (latest version of the license is APSL 2.0) ? I had a look at the license text[1] and it seems like clause 2.1 would make it non-free. But I'm no expert on this stuff ... [1] http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/1.0.txt Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top From rfontana at redhat.com Mon Feb 16 10:53:49 2009 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:53:49 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] APSL 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090216075243.GA15253@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20090216075243.GA15253@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <20090216055349.48e5b162@calliope> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:52:43 +0000 "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote: > APSL 1.0 is listed in Bad Licenses. Is this because it is non-free, > or because it was deprecated and replaced (latest version of the > license is APSL 2.0) ? > > I had a look at the license text[1] and it seems like clause 2.1 would > make it non-free. But I'm no expert on this stuff ... > > [1] http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/1.0.txt See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/historical-apsl.html - RF From rjones at redhat.com Mon Feb 16 13:22:40 2009 From: rjones at redhat.com (Richard W.M. Jones) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:22:40 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] APSL 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090216055349.48e5b162@calliope> References: <20090216075243.GA15253@amd.home.annexia.org> <20090216055349.48e5b162@calliope> Message-ID: <20090216132240.GA16943@amd.home.annexia.org> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 05:53:49AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:52:43 +0000 > "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote: > > > APSL 1.0 is listed in Bad Licenses. Is this because it is non-free, > > or because it was deprecated and replaced (latest version of the > > license is APSL 2.0) ? > > > > I had a look at the license text[1] and it seems like clause 2.1 would > > make it non-free. But I'm no expert on this stuff ... > > > > [1] http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/1.0.txt > > See > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/historical-apsl.html Interesting, thanks. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones Read my OCaml programming blog: http://camltastic.blogspot.com/ Fedora now supports 68 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Feb 16 18:56:00 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:56:00 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] xBill legal opinion required In-Reply-To: <29fee02b0812260250g564e1b38h199c69255fee8cd6@mail.gmail.com> References: <29fee02b0812260250g564e1b38h199c69255fee8cd6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4999B6C0.10408@redhat.com> On 2008-12-26 at 5:50:31 -0500, "Andrea Musuruane" wrote: > Hi all, > I'd like to now if xBill is suitable for inclusion in Fedora: > > http://www.xbill.org/ > > License, as stated in the man entry, is GPL (no version specified). > > My concerns regard the use of various logos in the game. > > Also note that this game has been packaged until 2001 in Red Hat. Red Hat Legal says this is not acceptable. ~spot From robert at marcanoonline.com Mon Feb 16 19:28:16 2009 From: robert at marcanoonline.com (Robert Marcano) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:58:16 +1930 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] is BSD with adverting? Message-ID: Greetings, can anyone help me identify this license?, I am not sure if tag it as BSD with adventising because it says "The end-user documentation" Sequence Library License This license applies to all portions of the Sequence library, which are not externally-maintained libraries (e.g. junit or jsch). ==================================================================== Copyright (c) 2000-2008 SyntEvo GmbH, Ainring, GERMANY. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. 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. 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by SyntEvo GmbH, Ainring, GERMANY." Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. 4. The hosted project names must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please contact info at syntevo.com. 5. Neither the name of SyntEvo GmbH 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 ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED 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 SyntEvo GmbH OR HIS 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. ==================================================================== -- Robert Marcano -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Feb 16 19:45:25 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:45:25 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] xBill legal opinion required In-Reply-To: <4999C1A6.5010802@redhat.com> References: <29fee02b0812260250g564e1b38h199c69255fee8cd6@mail.gmail.com> <4999B6C0.10408@redhat.com> <4999C1A6.5010802@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4999C255.3060900@redhat.com> On 2009-02-16 at 14:42:30 -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >> On 2008-12-26 at 5:50:31 -0500, "Andrea Musuruane" >> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> I'd like to now if xBill is suitable for inclusion in Fedora: >>> >>> http://www.xbill.org/ >>> >>> License, as stated in the man entry, is GPL (no version specified). >>> >>> My concerns regard the use of various logos in the game. >>> >>> Also note that this game has been packaged until 2001 in Red Hat. >> >> Red Hat Legal says this is not acceptable. > > Is it because of the artwork? We can get it replaced. Well, the issue is that the game is clearly disparaging Microsoft and its marks. I'm not sure any amount of "artwork" replacement will overcome that. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Feb 16 20:03:05 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:03:05 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] is BSD with adverting? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4999C679.8080904@redhat.com> On 2009-02-16 at 14:28:16 -0500, Robert Marcano wrote: > Greetings, can anyone help me identify this license?, I am not sure if tag > it as BSD with adventising because it says "The end-user documentation" It is not BSD with advertising. It is Apache 1.1 (Free, but GPL Incompatible). Use: License: ASL 1.1 ~spot From ville.skytta at iki.fi Mon Feb 16 22:28:00 2009 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?iso-8859-1?q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:28:00 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] W3C logo and icon usage Message-ID: <200902170028.01390.ville.skytta@iki.fi> Hello, There are some packages that contain W3C logos and icons which are not under the W3C software license, but are covered by other licenses. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/trademark-license http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/logo-usage-20000308.html http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#icon At least the "W3C Icon" and a bunch of "W3C Validator Logos" are included in some packages. There are some constraints on these icons/logos that I think might make them problematic for inclusion Fedora: 1) No modification permitted (OTOH I believe it's the same thing with Mozilla's logos in firefox, thunderbird etc). 2) The "W3C Valid $foo" logos may only be used on pages that pass validation, and they have some other usage restrictions wrt. where they can/must link to etc. What does this mean for packages including these icons? Are they ok as is, undistributable, ok if icons removed from binary packages and software/docs modified to link to online icons on W3C sites instead of shipped copies, ok with icons removed also from source tarballs in the source rpm, something else? Affected packages include at least w3c-markup-validator (icons both in source and binary rpms), xhtml1-dtds and html401-dtds (some icons in source rpms, but not in binaries). An entry in the license list for this wouldn't hurt. From ville.skytta at iki.fi Mon Feb 16 22:38:39 2009 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?iso-8859-1?q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:38:39 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ISO-HTML DTD license Message-ID: <200902170038.39996.ville.skytta@iki.fi> Hello, The w3c-markup-validator package contains a copy of the "ISO-HTML" DTD in /usr/share/sgml/w3c-markup-validator/ISO-HTML/15445.dtd which contains: [...] Copyright (C) 2000, IETF, W3C (MIT, Inria, Keio), ISO/IEC. All Rights Reserved. Permission to copy in any form is granted for use with validating and conforming systems and applications as defined in ISO/IEC 15445:2000, provided this copyright notice is included with all copies. [...] Is the "for use with ..." part a problem wrt. inclusion in Fedora? The definitions of validating and conforming systems are documented at http://purl.org/NET/ISO+IEC.15445/15445.html If it is a problem, is evicting the file from binary packages enough, or should it be removed from inside source rpms too? From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Feb 16 22:47:34 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:47:34 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] W3C logo and icon usage In-Reply-To: <200902170028.01390.ville.skytta@iki.fi> References: <200902170028.01390.ville.skytta@iki.fi> Message-ID: <4999ED06.9090002@redhat.com> On 2009-02-16 at 17:28:00 -0500, Ville Skytt? wrote: > Hello, > > There are some packages that contain W3C logos and icons which are not under > the W3C software license, but are covered by other licenses. > > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/trademark-license > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/logo-usage-20000308.html > http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#icon > > At least the "W3C Icon" and a bunch of "W3C Validator Logos" are included in > some packages. There are some constraints on these icons/logos that I think > might make them problematic for inclusion Fedora: Hmmmm. I will have to think about this. ~spot From kwade at redhat.com Mon Feb 16 23:56:20 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:56:20 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] xBill legal opinion required In-Reply-To: <4999C255.3060900@redhat.com> References: <29fee02b0812260250g564e1b38h199c69255fee8cd6@mail.gmail.com> <4999B6C0.10408@redhat.com> <4999C1A6.5010802@redhat.com> <4999C255.3060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090216235620.GU4287@calliope.phig.org> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 02:45:25PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On 2009-02-16 at 14:42:30 -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > >> On 2008-12-26 at 5:50:31 -0500, "Andrea Musuruane" > >> wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> I'd like to now if xBill is suitable for inclusion in Fedora: > >>> > >>> http://www.xbill.org/ > >>> > >>> License, as stated in the man entry, is GPL (no version specified). > >>> > >>> My concerns regard the use of various logos in the game. > >>> > >>> Also note that this game has been packaged until 2001 in Red Hat. > >> > >> Red Hat Legal says this is not acceptable. > > > > Is it because of the artwork? We can get it replaced. > > Well, the issue is that the game is clearly disparaging Microsoft and > its marks. I'm not sure any amount of "artwork" replacement will > overcome that. We don't have any right to redistribute parody?!? - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Feb 17 16:12:29 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:12:29 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] xBill legal opinion required In-Reply-To: <20090216235620.GU4287@calliope.phig.org> References: <29fee02b0812260250g564e1b38h199c69255fee8cd6@mail.gmail.com> <4999B6C0.10408@redhat.com> <4999C1A6.5010802@redhat.com> <4999C255.3060900@redhat.com> <20090216235620.GU4287@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <499AE1ED.3000502@redhat.com> On 2009-02-16 at 18:56:20 -0500, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 02:45:25PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: >> On 2009-02-16 at 14:42:30 -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >>>> On 2008-12-26 at 5:50:31 -0500, "Andrea Musuruane" >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> I'd like to now if xBill is suitable for inclusion in Fedora: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.xbill.org/ >>>>> >>>>> License, as stated in the man entry, is GPL (no version specified). >>>>> >>>>> My concerns regard the use of various logos in the game. >>>>> >>>>> Also note that this game has been packaged until 2001 in Red Hat. >>>> Red Hat Legal says this is not acceptable. >>> Is it because of the artwork? We can get it replaced. >> Well, the issue is that the game is clearly disparaging Microsoft and >> its marks. I'm not sure any amount of "artwork" replacement will >> overcome that. > > We don't have any right to redistribute parody?!? There is a difference between parody and disparagement. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Feb 18 18:51:36 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:51:36 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ISO-HTML DTD license In-Reply-To: <200902170038.39996.ville.skytta@iki.fi> References: <200902170038.39996.ville.skytta@iki.fi> Message-ID: <499C58B8.7040506@redhat.com> On 2009-02-16 at 17:38:39 -0500, Ville Skytt? wrote: > Hello, > > The w3c-markup-validator package contains a copy of the "ISO-HTML" DTD > in /usr/share/sgml/w3c-markup-validator/ISO-HTML/15445.dtd which contains: > > [...] > Copyright (C) 2000, IETF, W3C (MIT, Inria, Keio), ISO/IEC. > All Rights Reserved. > > Permission to copy in any form is granted for use with > validating and conforming systems and applications as defined > in ISO/IEC 15445:2000, provided this copyright notice is included > with all copies. > [...] > > Is the "for use with ..." part a problem wrt. inclusion in Fedora? The > definitions of validating and conforming systems are documented at > http://purl.org/NET/ISO+IEC.15445/15445.html Yes, it is a problem. That license is non-free. > If it is a problem, is evicting the file from binary packages enough, or > should it be removed from inside source rpms too? Evicting the file from binary packages is sufficient, we have permission to copy it. ~spot From ville.skytta at iki.fi Wed Feb 18 21:42:39 2009 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?iso-8859-1?q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:42:39 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ISO-HTML DTD license In-Reply-To: <499C58B8.7040506@redhat.com> References: <200902170038.39996.ville.skytta@iki.fi> <499C58B8.7040506@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200902182342.40215.ville.skytta@iki.fi> On Wednesday 18 February 2009, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 2009-02-16 at 17:38:39 -0500, Ville Skytt? wrote: > > Hello, > > > > The w3c-markup-validator package contains a copy of the "ISO-HTML" DTD > > in /usr/share/sgml/w3c-markup-validator/ISO-HTML/15445.dtd which > > contains: > > > > [...] > > Copyright (C) 2000, IETF, W3C (MIT, Inria, Keio), ISO/IEC. > > All Rights Reserved. > > > > Permission to copy in any form is granted for use with > > validating and conforming systems and applications as defined > > in ISO/IEC 15445:2000, provided this copyright notice is included > > with all copies. > > [...] > > > > Is the "for use with ..." part a problem wrt. inclusion in Fedora? The > > definitions of validating and conforming systems are documented at > > http://purl.org/NET/ISO+IEC.15445/15445.html > > Yes, it is a problem. That license is non-free. > > > If it is a problem, is evicting the file from binary packages enough, or > > should it be removed from inside source rpms too? > > Evicting the file from binary packages is sufficient, we have permission > to copy it. Ok, thanks, I'll take care of it. From david at gnsa.us Thu Feb 19 03:53:16 2009 From: david at gnsa.us (David Nalley) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:53:16 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] The Iran Question Message-ID: Ohh legal-type ones: We have a contributor from Iran (and I imagine that you are already engaged on the trademark issue for a proposed website). This gentleman has recently been sponsored as an Ambassador and recently asked the question about what he can do within Iran. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-ambassadors-list/2009-February/msg00262.html I responded and told him that I had been pondering this question but had no answers and would appeal to those who are more qualified to answer. It is obvious to me that we can not directly provide him support however I think his questions are valid, and there have been recent conversations about other countries in similar situations such as Cuba. The first question in my mind is: what type of liability exists for us to have 'members' of Fedora in such countries. The example I am thinking of is if he as an individual downloads Fedora isos and distributes them at an event in Iran, is there risk to us because he is a member of the Fedora Project. Perhaps a better question is: What is he forbidden from doing. Given the recent list traffic regarding Cuba and now Iran, perhaps codifying such restrictions would be beneficial. If such a page already exists, please feel free to ignore my question and just point me there, but my friend Google yielded little other than this blog post from Greg a year ago: http://gregdek.livejournal.com/23007.html Another question - supposing some level of involvement is acceptable, and that Fedora EMEA e.V. is not subject to such restrictions (it's my belief that EU countries have no such law regarding Iran, but whether that's a belief grounded in reality might be a different matter) could Fedora EMEA support activities in $forbidden_places? I know RH Legal is trying to wrap it's head around the entire non-profit organization stuff at the moment, so perhaps we can also get this answered in the process. Thanks David Nalley From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Feb 19 03:59:14 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:59:14 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] The Iran Question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499CD912.8080204@redhat.com> On 2009-02-18 at 22:53:16 -0500, David Nalley wrote: > Perhaps a better question is: What is he forbidden from doing. Given > the recent list traffic regarding Cuba and now Iran, perhaps codifying > such restrictions would be beneficial. So, we're working on this with Red Hat Legal. We can't use Fedora EMEA as a proxy to get around these issues. Please be patient, this is rather complicated. ~spot From musuruan at gmail.com Fri Feb 20 09:27:59 2009 From: musuruan at gmail.com (Andrea Musuruane) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:27:59 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Paint-mono license Message-ID: <29fee02b0902200127v256a892bwf91424006b9f79b1@mail.gmail.com> Hi, someone has updated Paint-mono entry in the Wishlist with the following comment: "Cannot be included since Paint is partly licensed under a non-commercial license". This is the paint-mono license: http://code.google.com/p/paint-mono/source/browse/trunk/src/Resources/Files/License.txt I think that the offending part is: * The Paint.NET logo and icon artwork are Copyright (C) Rick Brewster. They are covered by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 license which is detailed here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ . Permission is granted to use the logo and icon artwork in ways that discuss or promote Paint.NET (e.g. blog and news posts about Paint.NET, "Made with Paint.NET" watermarks or insets). Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs is a BAD license for content: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Bad_Licenses_3 But if the problem is only the logo and the icon, cannot they be replaced? Bye, Andrea. From lfarkas at lfarkas.org Fri Feb 20 18:11:46 2009 From: lfarkas at lfarkas.org (Farkas Levente) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:11:46 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] lwjgl Message-ID: <499EF262.7040907@lfarkas.org> hi, i'd like to know that lwjgl is ok for fedora: http://www.lwjgl.org/license.php thanks in advance. yours. -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!" From roozbeh at gmail.com Fri Feb 20 19:30:35 2009 From: roozbeh at gmail.com (Roozbeh Pournader) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:30:35 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] The Iran Question Message-ID: On 18 Feb 2009, wrote: > We have a contributor from Iran. This is no news. Fedora has had quite a few contributors from Iran before. We have had Iranian package maintainers, bug reporters, code contributors, translators, ambassadors, etc already. They have been Iranian citizens, some living in (and contributing from) Iran, some living in the west (Canada, US, etc). > It is obvious to me that we can not directly provide him support [...] What makes it obvious? Are you thinking of any specific law? There are various United States laws restricting some kinds of business with "foreigners", but all of them detailed exceptions for this and that. > The first question in my mind is: what type of liability exists for us > to have 'members' of Fedora in such countries. I don't think we need to be extra careful with contributors from Iran, or any other countries, unless we talk about specific laws. Please don't let the media carry you away. Lots of Iran-related stuff I've encountered in the free software world are just based on FUD. So unless there is a specific law mentioned, one shouldn't don't worry. > The example I am > thinking of is if he as an individual downloads Fedora isos and > distributes them at an event in Iran, is there risk to us because he > is a member of the Fedora Project. That has already happened before quite a few times. I have personally downloaded such ISOs, burnt them to CDs, and distributed them in events in Iran when I lived there. I was an Iranian living in Iran, and the Iranian laws did not forbid me or my sponsors to do that, as far as I could tell (and we had lawyers look into it too). > Perhaps a better question is: What is he forbidden from doing. Whatever the Iranian laws forbids him to do. He is under Iranian jurisdiction. Tell him to talk to an Iranian lawyer. That's what I did. Roozbeh, One of the "Iranians" >:) From tibbs at math.uh.edu Fri Feb 20 20:38:20 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:38:20 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] lwjgl In-Reply-To: <499EF262.7040907@lfarkas.org> (Farkas Levente's message of "Fri\, 20 Feb 2009 19\:11\:46 +0100") References: <499EF262.7040907@lfarkas.org> Message-ID: >>>>> "FL" == Farkas Levente writes: FL> hi, i'd like to know that lwjgl is ok for fedora: FL> http://www.lwjgl.org/license.php thanks in advance. yours. That's just 3-clause BSD, isn't it? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#New_BSD_.28no_advertising.2C_3_clause.29 It's worth looking through the licenses that are already collected on the wiki; often times you can find an exact match there. - J< From tcallawa at redhat.com Sun Feb 22 22:51:23 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:51:23 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Paint-mono license In-Reply-To: <29fee02b0902200127v256a892bwf91424006b9f79b1@mail.gmail.com> References: <29fee02b0902200127v256a892bwf91424006b9f79b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49A1D6EB.9010002@redhat.com> On 2009-02-20 at 4:27:59 -0500, Andrea Musuruane wrote: > Hi, > someone has updated Paint-mono entry in the Wishlist with the > following comment: "Cannot be included since Paint is partly licensed > under a non-commercial license". > > This is the paint-mono license: > http://code.google.com/p/paint-mono/source/browse/trunk/src/Resources/Files/License.txt > > I think that the offending part is: > * The Paint.NET logo and icon artwork are Copyright (C) Rick Brewster. > They are covered by the Creative Commons > Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 license which is detailed here: > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ . Permission is > granted to use the logo and icon artwork in ways that discuss or > promote Paint.NET (e.g. blog and news posts about Paint.NET, "Made > with Paint.NET" watermarks or insets). > > Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs is a BAD license > for content: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Bad_Licenses_3 > > But if the problem is only the logo and the icon, cannot they be replaced? If that is the only problem, then, yes. ~spot From eric.moret at gmail.com Wed Feb 25 22:16:55 2009 From: eric.moret at gmail.com (Eric Moret) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:16:55 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License Message-ID: I would like to package Paint.NET for Fedora. It seems this application includes the source code of the GPC project which is licensed under its own terms. Could you please let me know if this license would be acceptable for inclusion in Fedora? Thank you, __ Eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Feb 25 22:40:00 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:40:00 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49A5C8C0.5060904@redhat.com> On 2009-02-25 at 17:16:55 -0500, Eric Moret wrote: > I would like to package Paint.NET for Fedora. It seems this application > includes the source code of the GPC project which is licensed under its own > terms. Could you please let me know if this license would be acceptable for > inclusion in Fedora? So, in looking at this, there are a few problems: >From the license: * Exception 1: The Paint.NET logo and icon artwork are Copyright (C) Rick Brewster. They are covered by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 license which is detailed here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ . However, permission is granted to use the logo and icon artwork in ways that directly discuss or promote Paint.NET (e.g. blog and news posts about Paint.NET, "Made with Paint.NET" watermarks or insets). ***** Any CC license with the NonCommercial clause is not acceptable for Fedora, so you'd have to remove the logo and icon artwork. ***** Again, from the license: * Exception 2: Paint.NET makes use of certain text and graphic resources that it comes with (e.g., toolbar icon graphics, text for menu items and the status bar). These are collectively referred to as "resource assets" and are defined to include the contents of files installed by Paint.NET, or included in its source code distribution, that have a .RESOURCES, .RESX, or .PNG file extension. This also includes embedded resource files within the PaintDotNet.Resources.dll installed file. These "resource assets" are covered by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 license which is detailed here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ . However, permission is granted to create and distribute derivative works of the "resource assets" for the sole purpose of providing a translation to a language other than English. Some "resource assets" are included in unmodified form from external icon or image libraries and are still covered by their original, respective licenses (e.g., "Silk", "Visual Studio 2005 Image Library"). ***** Same here. Any "text and graphic resources" under that CC NonCommercial license would have to be removed. ***** Lastly, from the license: * Exception 3: Although the Paint.NET source code distribution includes the GPC source code, use of the GPC code in any other commercial application is not permitted without a GPC Commercial Use Licence from The University of Manchester. For more information, please refer to the GPC website at: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/alan/software/ The GPC license is non-free, because it has commercial use restrictions. Thus, I don't think you are going to be able to include Paint.NET in Fedora. Andrea, you asked about this, and I said before that it might be okay, but after actually looking at the licensing, this is definitely not permissable. You'd have to strip out what I suspect is all of the graphics and the GPC code bits, and I'm not sure that would make it very useful. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Feb 26 14:15:51 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:15:51 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License In-Reply-To: References: <49A5C8C0.5060904@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49A6A417.9040705@redhat.com> On 2009-02-25 at 17:57:01 -0500, Eric Moret wrote: > Thank you for a quick reply. I have already created a request on the fedora > artwork design service page for replacement of icons and resources: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/DesignService#Paint.NET_icon_replacement > > Despite the pdn license page and upon further inspection I was not able to > locate the source code of GPC anywhere in the source of the package. Off > course I might have overlooked it. Here is the current SRPM: The problem is that because the license says that Paint.NET includes it, you're going to need to find it and pull every bit of it out (or get the GPC copyright holders to permit its use under the terms of a free license). ~spot From dan at danny.cz Thu Feb 26 14:59:36 2009 From: dan at danny.cz (Dan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hor=E1k?=) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:59:36 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] OpenCascade Public License again Message-ID: <1235660376.3687.79.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Hi Spot, you will probably remember that you were checking the OpenCascade Public License few moth ago. Now the question about its free/nonfree status was opened on the upstream forum and it would be a good chance to express our (or better RH Legal's) reasons that led to the decision that it is non-free and possibly make upstream to resolve them. I am including the mail I got from Debian packagers. URL of the discussion is http://www.opencascade.org/org/forum/thread_15859/ related Review Request is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974 Dan -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Denis Barbier Subject: Re: OpenCASCADE .deb: separated out triangle Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:00:26 +0100 Size: 3458 URL: From mchristi at redhat.com Thu Feb 26 16:12:38 2009 From: mchristi at redhat.com (Mike Christie) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:12:38 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] question on a new license in a new package. Message-ID: <49A6BF76.4030607@redhat.com> Hi, The HBAAPI project: http://hbaapi.sourceforge.net/ uses a license called the SNIA Public License Version 1.0. In the source header there is this: * License: * The contents of this file are subject to the SNIA Public License * Version 1.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in * compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at * * /http://www.snia.org/English/Resources/Code/OpenSource.html * * Software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" * basis, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See * the License for the specific language governing rights and limitations * under the License. The problem is that this SNAI licsense is not listed under good licenses here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing so I wanted to get it cleared, but the link to the license in the headers is a dead link. If the maintainers of the code do not have a copy of the license and the people at SNIA do not respond to emails about it, what are my options? If I find something on google in another project that says it is the snia public license 1.0, can I include it with the source and send to you guys to get cleared? What if I cannot find 1.0 (I can find 1.1 but not 1.0)? Do I just have to ditch the sourceforge project and write code from scratch and license it how I want? Thanks Mike From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Feb 26 18:27:54 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:27:54 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License In-Reply-To: References: <49A5C8C0.5060904@redhat.com> <49A6A417.9040705@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49A6DF2A.5090306@redhat.com> On 2009-02-26 at 13:21:01 -0500, Eric Moret wrote: > Tom, > > I looked for this in the source tree but could not identify the offending > GPC code. What I suspect is that the license we are looking at ( > http://www.getpaint.net/license.html) is for the current version (3.36) of > Paint.NET which _may_ indeed include GPC while the mono paint tree that we > are building (http://code.google.com/p/paint-mono/) was last synched from > upstream over one year ago and is currently stuck on 3.00; mono paint is > currently unable to resync because the code does not seem to be available > from upstream Paint.NET anymore making mono paint look more like a fork of > Paint.NET than a port to mono, see message below from the project lead. Hmm. Does mono-paint have the same license text inside of it? If it could be shown that mono paint forked from Paint.NET before the GPC code was merged, then this would be a non issue, but if the license text in mono paint has the GPC licensing in it, it is safe to assume that happened pre fork. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Feb 26 18:28:58 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:28:58 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] OpenCascade Public License again In-Reply-To: <1235660376.3687.79.camel@eagle.danny.cz> References: <1235660376.3687.79.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Message-ID: <49A6DF6A.5080201@redhat.com> On 2009-02-26 at 9:59:36 -0500, Dan Hor?k wrote: > Hi Spot, > > you will probably remember that you were checking the OpenCascade Public > License few moth ago. Now the question about its free/nonfree status was > opened on the upstream forum and it would be a good chance to express > our (or better RH Legal's) reasons that led to the decision that it is > non-free and possibly make upstream to resolve them. > > I am including the mail I got from Debian packagers. > > URL of the discussion is > http://www.opencascade.org/org/forum/thread_15859/ Dan, I've posted to that thread with the information about why that license is non-free. Thanks, ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Feb 26 19:09:12 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:09:12 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License In-Reply-To: References: <49A5C8C0.5060904@redhat.com> <49A6A417.9040705@redhat.com> <49A6DF2A.5090306@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49A6E8D8.6020709@redhat.com> On 2009-02-26 at 13:52:24 -0500, Eric Moret wrote: > The current tree does not seem to have gpc mentioned anywhere. Is that Paint.net or mono-paint? The naming is not clear. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Feb 26 19:23:08 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:23:08 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License In-Reply-To: References: <49A5C8C0.5060904@redhat.com> <49A6A417.9040705@redhat.com> <49A6DF2A.5090306@redhat.com> <49A6E8D8.6020709@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49A6EC1C.9050005@redhat.com> On 2009-02-26 at 14:21:24 -0500, Eric Moret wrote: > This is the mono paint tree; that tree has not undergone a renaming of the > tarball dist target nor any of the embedded resulting binaries. Wow, that seems like a really bad idea. I'd go so far as to suggest that upstream rename things to avoid confusion, especially since there are licensing differences and possible trademarks in play. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Feb 26 19:26:23 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:26:23 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] question on a new license in a new package. In-Reply-To: <49A6BF76.4030607@redhat.com> References: <49A6BF76.4030607@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49A6ECDF.1060404@redhat.com> On 2009-02-26 at 11:12:38 -0500, Mike Christie wrote: > The problem is that this SNAI licsense is not listed under good licenses > here: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing > so I wanted to get it cleared, but the link to the license in the > headers is a dead link. So, in looking into this, I noticed that the 1.1 license says this in its Exhibit A (which the license says you have to apply to your source code): "The contents of this file are subject to the SNIA Public License Version 1.0 (the "License");" This is why we are confused trying to track down a 1.0 version where none exists. The 1.1 versioning comes from the MPL, which is what this license is derived from. These files are actually under the 1.1 version, but because of the typo, they have to say 1.0. Sloppy, sloppy, and might be why SNIA isn't using this license anymore. Nevertheless, the license is Free but GPL incompatible. I've added it to the Licensing list. Use: License: SNIA ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Feb 26 21:41:16 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:41:16 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License In-Reply-To: References: <49A5C8C0.5060904@redhat.com> <49A6A417.9040705@redhat.com> <49A6DF2A.5090306@redhat.com> <49A6E8D8.6020709@redhat.com> <49A6EC1C.9050005@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49A70C7C.400@redhat.com> On 2009-02-26 at 16:23:27 -0500, Eric Moret wrote: > The confusion comes from the upstream Paint.NET licensing which is in limbo. > On the one hand their license says pdn is under an MIT license but on the > other hand they have removed the link to the download source code archive > and posted a cryptic message on their forum entitled "The source code is not > available" and containing the following statement "Please don?t ask for it, > or ask about it. Thanks." ( > http://paintdotnet.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=28275&p=238380&hilit=source#p238380 > ). > > Once this mess will be cleared up, it will be easier for mono paint to take > action in one direction or another. In the mean time I would simply suggest > we package the project in its current form and stick to upstream as progress > are made towards resolution. My concern is that the "Paint.net" upstream source contains non-free bits (the GPC bits). The mono paint fork may have the GPC bits or it may not. It doesn't seem to, but Miguel doesn't remember when he forked. The very involvement of Miguel in this mess makes me uncomfortable, but the missing facts certainly don't help. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Feb 27 18:16:23 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:16:23 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GPC License In-Reply-To: References: <49A6A417.9040705@redhat.com> <49A6DF2A.5090306@redhat.com> <49A6E8D8.6020709@redhat.com> <49A6EC1C.9050005@redhat.com> <49A70C7C.400@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49A82DF7.5020702@redhat.com> On 2009-02-27 at 13:04:24 -0500, Eric Moret wrote: > Case solved! I was able to compare the source codes for Paint.NET 3.36 > current and mono paint. The GPC code is clearly visible in the more recent > tree and absent from mono paint. I also received confirmation on the mono > paint mailing list. > > http://groups.google.com/group/mono-paint-port/browse_thread/thread/6892be284203b1d5?hl=en Great! Now all you have to do is replace all the graphics. ;) ~spot From atorkhov at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 20:31:39 2009 From: atorkhov at gmail.com (Alexey Torkhov) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:31:39 +0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ms-sys Message-ID: <1235766699.20976.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hi. In ms-sys review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458011 there was question regarding its legal status that was never answered: This package contains verbatim copies of various MBRs and boot records stuffed into arrays in the supposedly GPLed source code. Is that legally acceptable? Could somebody comment on this? Alexey From petersen at redhat.com Sat Feb 28 11:49:32 2009 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 06:49:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] BSD3 without binary clause Message-ID: <745100500.809591235821772004.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Hi I am reviewing a package (ghc-X11) which is basically BSD 3 clause without the 2nd binary clause. http://darcs.haskell.org/packages/X11/LICENSE Would this just be BSD license? Jens