From michel.sylvan at gmail.com Mon Mar 2 14:48:55 2009 From: michel.sylvan at gmail.com (Michel Salim) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:48:55 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CeCILL licenses Message-ID: Hello, Upstream for a package I just submitted for review, Scheme2Js (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487938) has indicated that the license is switching from GPL+ to CeCILL-C (v2): http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html CeCILL itself is free and GPL-compatible, and is FSF-approved, though there's no clarification about whether this is GPLv2 or GPLv3: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses CeCILL-C (component) is claimed to be LGPL-compatible, though I'm not sure if FSF approves it as well, or just the main CeCILL license (and again, version 2, 3 or both). CeCILL-B (BSD) is like the BSD license with advertising, which I guess rules it out from Fedora. Could the legal team look into this? The license is INRIA-originated, so it's possible that in the future, more INRIA software (such as Bigloo, already in Fedora) might switch over. Thanks, -- mi?el salim ? http://hircus.jaiku.com/ IUCS ? msalim at cs.indiana.edu Fedora ? salimma at fedoraproject.org MacPorts ? hircus at macports.org From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Mar 2 14:58:20 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:28:20 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CeCILL licenses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49ABF40C.5070906@fedoraproject.org> Michel Salim wrote: > CeCILL-B (BSD) is like the BSD license with advertising, which I guess > rules it out from Fedora. It does not. > Could the legal team look into this? The license is INRIA-originated, > so it's possible that in the future, more INRIA software (such as > Bigloo, already in Fedora) might switch over. > Cecill is already listed at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Mar 2 15:10:38 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 10:10:38 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] BSD3 without binary clause In-Reply-To: <745100500.809591235821772004.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <745100500.809591235821772004.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <49ABF6EE.9020303@redhat.com> On 2009-02-28 at 6:49:32 -0500, Jens Petersen wrote: > 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? Yes. It is slightly more permissive than normal BSD, but it doesn't fundamentally change license compatibility issues. ~spot From michel.sylvan at gmail.com Mon Mar 2 15:56:50 2009 From: michel.sylvan at gmail.com (Michel Salim) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:56:50 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CeCILL licenses In-Reply-To: <49ABF40C.5070906@fedoraproject.org> References: <49ABF40C.5070906@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Michel Salim wrote: > >> CeCILL-B (BSD) is like the BSD license with advertising, which I guess >> rules it out from Fedora. > > It does not. > >> Could the legal team look into this? The license is INRIA-originated, >> so it's possible that in the future, more INRIA software (such as >> Bigloo, already in Fedora) might switch over. >> > > Cecill is already listed at > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing > I must be blind. Thanks. I'll let upstream knows -- AFAIK they are using Scheme2Js as a component in something that is currently GPL-licensed, and CeCILL-C is listed as *in*compatible with GPLv2. Is there any more information about the reason CeCILL-C conflicts with GPL? For B it's the advertising clause, I guess. Thanks, -- mi?el salim ? http://hircus.jaiku.com/ IUCS ? msalim at cs.indiana.edu Fedora ? salimma at fedoraproject.org MacPorts ? hircus at macports.org From rfontana at redhat.com Mon Mar 2 16:46:11 2009 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:46:11 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CeCILL licenses In-Reply-To: References: <49ABF40C.5070906@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20090302114611.3e24ecc2@calliope> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:56:50 -0500 Michel Salim wrote: > Is there any more information about the reason CeCILL-C conflicts with > GPL? For B it's the advertising clause, I guess. CeCILL-C has a copyleft requirement. - RF From dan at danny.cz Mon Mar 2 17:17:25 2009 From: dan at danny.cz (Dan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hor=E1k?=) Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:17:25 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] OpenCascade Public License again In-Reply-To: <49A6DF6A.5080201@redhat.com> References: <1235660376.3687.79.camel@eagle.danny.cz> <49A6DF6A.5080201@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1236014245.3681.54.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Tom "spot" Callaway p??e v ?t 26. 02. 2009 v 13:28 -0500: > 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. Many thanks Spot. They are now looking for a standard license that will meet their requirements. Could you take a look at the forum once more? Thanks, Dan From michel.sylvan at gmail.com Mon Mar 2 20:12:10 2009 From: michel.sylvan at gmail.com (Michel Salim) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:12:10 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] OpenCascade Public License again In-Reply-To: <1236014245.3681.54.camel@eagle.danny.cz> References: <1235660376.3687.79.camel@eagle.danny.cz> <49A6DF6A.5080201@redhat.com> <1236014245.3681.54.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Dan Hor?k wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway p??e v ?t 26. 02. 2009 v 13:28 -0500: >> 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. > > Many thanks Spot. They are now looking for a standard license that will > meet their requirements. Could you take a look at the forum once more? > I would not want to register for yet another forum, but we could suggest that they use MPL and/or CDDL? Dual-license it with LGPL or GPL if they need compatibility -- though once you go dual-licensing, ensuring that upstream can consume any modification would require copyright assignment. Regards, -- mi?el salim ? http://hircus.jaiku.com/ IUCS ? msalim at cs.indiana.edu Fedora ? salimma at fedoraproject.org MacPorts ? hircus at macports.org From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Mar 2 23:27:32 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:27:32 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] OpenCascade Public License again In-Reply-To: References: <1235660376.3687.79.camel@eagle.danny.cz> <49A6DF6A.5080201@redhat.com> <1236014245.3681.54.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Message-ID: <49AC6B64.1010808@redhat.com> On 2009-03-02 at 15:12:10 -0500, Michel Salim wrote: > I would not want to register for yet another forum, but we could > suggest that they use MPL and/or CDDL? Dual-license it with LGPL or > GPL if they need compatibility -- though once you go dual-licensing, > ensuring that upstream can consume any modification would require > copyright assignment. I'm not a fan of MPL, and I'm definitely not a fan of CDDL. CDDL cannot die-off quickly enough. ~spot From musuruan at gmail.com Thu Mar 5 11:19:01 2009 From: musuruan at gmail.com (Andrea Musuruane) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 12:19:01 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Openstreetmap moving to Open Database License (ODbL) Message-ID: <29fee02b0903050319t67a9508bla71d228556f9df0a@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Openstreetmap project is about to change their license from CC-BY-SA to ODbL: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001958.html http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Database_License The Openstreetmap foundation has opened a discussion about the license. It will end on March, 20th. It intends to publish the definitive license on March, 28th. Therefore I'd like to know if this license would permit to include Openstreetmap contents (e.g. maps) in the Fedora Project or if it has some problems. I think that it would be very useful if problems could arise now that the license is not yet released or used. Bye, Andrea. From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Mar 5 17:04:44 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 12:04:44 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Openstreetmap moving to Open Database License (ODbL) In-Reply-To: <29fee02b0903050319t67a9508bla71d228556f9df0a@mail.gmail.com> References: <29fee02b0903050319t67a9508bla71d228556f9df0a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49B0062C.6000201@redhat.com> On 03/05/2009 06:19 AM, Andrea Musuruane wrote: > Hi, > Openstreetmap project is about to change their license from > CC-BY-SA to ODbL: > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001958.html > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Database_License > > The Openstreetmap foundation has opened a discussion about the > license. It will end on March, 20th. It intends to publish the > definitive license on March, 28th. > > Therefore I'd like to know if this license would permit to include > Openstreetmap contents (e.g. maps) in the Fedora Project or if it has > some problems. > > I think that it would be very useful if problems could arise now that > the license is not yet released or used. I really don't want to subscribe to another mailing list... would you be willing to relay comments to the Open Data Commons people? Looking at the Factual Information License, I've got some concerns. I asked Red Hat Legal to take a look at it, and this was their reply: I think the problem with this one is that the definition of "Use" introduces some fundamental uncertainty. If it really means "any act that is restricted by copyright", and this license does seem to be trying to be a copyright license, then there ought to be no problem, since "Use" should encompass any act of modification that is restricted by applicable copyright -- e.g. rights to create derivative works under U.S. copyright law. However, then they bother to say "modifying the Work as may be technically necessary to use it in a different mode or format". That sounds like they might be implying that broader acts of modification are not within the scope of "Use", despite the apparent reach of the first part of the definition. And if "Use" does indeed encompass only a proper subset of copyright-law modification acts, then it would be non-free. While in general that wouldn't necessarily be true, but here the narrow interpretation suggests it is non-free because the apparently-granted modification rights are too limited. In addition, I'm concerned that there does not appear to be any explicit grant of permission to redistribute content under the Factual Information License without restriction. (RH Legal is still looking at the ODBL, they should have comments on that later, which I will pass along). Thanks in advance, ~spot From bochecha at fedoraproject.org Thu Mar 5 17:16:08 2009 From: bochecha at fedoraproject.org (Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:16:08 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Openstreetmap moving to Open Database License (ODbL) In-Reply-To: <49B0062C.6000201@redhat.com> References: <29fee02b0903050319t67a9508bla71d228556f9df0a@mail.gmail.com> <49B0062C.6000201@redhat.com> Message-ID: <2d319b780903050916wf6a77b6u70b9bf252aa1e006@mail.gmail.com> >> Therefore I'd like to know if this license would permit to include >> Openstreetmap contents (e.g. maps) in the Fedora Project or if it has >> some problems. >> > Looking at the Factual Information License, I've got some concerns. I > asked Red Hat Legal to take a look at it, and this was their reply: > [snip] > > (RH Legal is still looking at the ODBL, they should have comments on > that later, which I will pass along). Thank you Andrea for bringing this issue here, and thank you Tom for looking at it. I'm currently developing shomyu (which might eventually get its way into Fedora one day) and it uses OSM data, so I'm really concerned about this licensing change. /me blesses the day he decided to join this list Regards, ---------- Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin From oget.fedora at gmail.com Thu Mar 5 19:36:33 2009 From: oget.fedora at gmail.com (Orcan Ogetbil) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:36:33 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Do we need to remove proprietary code from previous releases? Message-ID: Recently I took over the orphaned package libzzub in F-10 and devel. I found that the upstream renamed the package to armstrong, so I opened a review request for armstrong and it just got approved. But whenever I was packaging armstrong, I found that the source tarball contains some MS propriatary code. This code does not get compiled into the final binary RPM but I removed it from the tarball when I created the SRPM. libzzub is now going through the PackageEndOfLife process and will be removed from F-10 and devel soon. The thing is, the old package libzzub that is in F-7, F-8 and F-9 still has this code in the SRPM. How shall we proceed in this case? Orcan PS: Specifically, the directory src/rtaudio/include needs to be removed from the libzzub tarball. From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Mar 5 20:40:46 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:40:46 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Do we need to remove proprietary code from previous releases? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49B038CE.60904@redhat.com> On 03/05/2009 02:36 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > Recently I took over the orphaned package libzzub in F-10 and devel. I > found that the upstream renamed the package to armstrong, so I opened > a review request for armstrong and it just got approved. > > But whenever I was packaging armstrong, I found that the source > tarball contains some MS propriatary code. This code does not get > compiled into the final binary RPM but I removed it from the tarball > when I created the SRPM. libzzub is now going through the > PackageEndOfLife process and will be removed from F-10 and devel soon. > > The thing is, the old package libzzub that is in F-7, F-8 and F-9 > still has this code in the SRPM. How shall we proceed in this case? Push updates for any non EOL branches without the proprietary gunk. In this case, F-9, since F-10 and devel are being taken care of by armstrong. ~spot From michel.sylvan at gmail.com Thu Mar 5 21:04:54 2009 From: michel.sylvan at gmail.com (Michel Salim) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:04:54 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legality of staple / unstaple Message-ID: staple / unstaple is an all-or-nothing data "binder" / unbinder, licensed under the BSD license. http://sysnet.ucsd.edu/projects/staple/ The author raises a concern that unstaple might be considered illegal due to its ability to brute-force the stapled file, and the FAQ listed some use cases involving misappropriation of intellectual property (the pirated file is combined with the author's own files, stapled together, and attempts to unstaple this collection arguably violates the DMCA). In view of this, staple is shipped separately from unstaple. Would either, or both, be acceptable in Fedora? Could we get staple in Fedora and unstaple in some non-US repositories? This software has been discussed on Bruce Schneier's blog: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/03/all-or-nothing.html#comments Thanks, -- mi?el salim ? http://hircus.jaiku.com/ IUCS ? msalim at cs.indiana.edu Fedora ? salimma at fedoraproject.org MacPorts ? hircus at macports.org From xjakub at fi.muni.cz Fri Mar 6 00:24:48 2009 From: xjakub at fi.muni.cz (Milos Jakubicek) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 01:24:48 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] enabling CUDA support Message-ID: <49B06D50.2080109@fi.muni.cz> Hi all, I've following bugreport from a BOINC user: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487981 Basically, CUDA is a Nvidia technology which enables the GPU to be used for various complex scientific computations (which are then even faster than on CPU). I was about to close the bug as WONTFIX as the whole CUDA is not open source, but then I found out that BOINC (which recently added support for CUDA applications) needs only the single libcudart.so library and that this prebuilt library coming from Nvidia has been already included in the source tarball (but not packaged as far). Now I have a question: as it principally enables the hardware to be controlled by some end-user applications, would it be possible to ship the libcudart.so library in a subpackage as "Redistributable, no modification permitted" like a firmware? Actually this is what the Nvidia's EULA is saying about the Linux part of CUDA: http://developer.download.nvidia.com/compute/cuda/2_1/toolkit/CUDA_Toolkit_EULA_081215.pdf (see section 2.1.3) Although I guess we can't do it in this way (I'm afraid that same arguments could then be used for e.g. all closed-source modules), I rather ask before definitely closing the bugreport. Regards, Milos From oget.fedora at gmail.com Fri Mar 6 00:31:34 2009 From: oget.fedora at gmail.com (Orcan Ogetbil) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 19:31:34 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Do we need to remove proprietary code from previous releases? In-Reply-To: <49B038CE.60904@redhat.com> References: <49B038CE.60904@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On 03/05/2009 02:36 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >> Recently I took over the orphaned package libzzub in F-10 and devel. I >> found that the upstream renamed the package to armstrong, so I opened >> a review request for armstrong and it just got approved. >> >> But whenever I was packaging armstrong, I found that the source >> tarball contains some MS propriatary code. This code does not get >> compiled into the final binary RPM but I removed it from the tarball >> when I created the SRPM. libzzub is now going through the >> PackageEndOfLife process and will be removed from F-10 and devel soon. >> >> The thing is, the old package libzzub that is in F-7, F-8 and F-9 >> still has this code in the SRPM. How shall we proceed in this case? > > Push updates for any non EOL branches without the proprietary gunk. In > this case, F-9, since F-10 and devel are being taken care of by armstrong. > > ~spot > Done. Orcan From rakesh.pandit at gmail.com Fri Mar 6 08:34:50 2009 From: rakesh.pandit at gmail.com (Rakesh Pandit) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:04:50 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] regarding ntop binary data file formats Message-ID: Recently my co-maintainer made a update in rawhide for ntop package from 3.3.8 to 3.3.9. It was without discussion with me. The update had a dependency with GeoIP package which needs GeoLiteCity.dat and GeoIPASNum.dat binary format files (they are compressed and optimized form of big CSV files). GeoIP package can read this .dat files and provide info. My questions is whether these .dat files can be included into fedora ? License for .dat files is at: http://geolite.maxmind.com/download/geoip/database/LICENSE.txt Bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488717 Build id: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=92821 Snippet from http://www.maxmind.com/app/geolitecity """ GeoLite City is offered in binary format, a highly optimized database that supports fast lookups using our Open Source API code. We recommend using the binary files with APIs instead of importing the CSV files into SQL because the binary format is more efficient and is easy to set up and use. * Binary Format Installation Instructions * Download the latest GeoLite City Binary Format (28 MB when uncompressed, last updated February 1st, 2009, next update March 9th, 2009) CSV Format Our CSV format enables you to load the database into a SQL database. The GeoIP City and GeoLite City use the same locationIDs, so the GeoIP City CSV files can be used as a drop in replacement for GeoLite City CSV files without having to change the locationIDs. Note that queries made against the CSV data imported into a SQL database can take up to a few seconds. If performance is an issue, the binary format is much faster, and can handle thousands of lookups per second. * Instructions on how to use our CSV databases with a SQL database. * Download the latest GeoLite City CSV Format (100 MB when uncompressed) """ -- Regards, Rakesh Pandit From chkr at plauener.de Fri Mar 6 08:39:57 2009 From: chkr at plauener.de (Christian Krause) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 09:39:57 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] "content" in source tarball Message-ID: <49B0E15D.2030407@plauener.de> Hi, I'm currently maintaining the package "anki" which is basically a learning program. The original tarball includes a couple of sample files with different licenses (some are not acceptable for Fedora). That's why the tarball gets re-generated without the samples before it gets packaged. In this case sample files mean that they contain larger amount of "learning content". Given the upstream package would be changed to contain only GPL-licensed sample files - would the following be ok: 1. The new upstream package is used without modifications for packaging and so the src.rpm would contain the (GPL-licensed) examples. 2. The binary package would not have these examples installed due to the "no-content" policy. Best regards, Christian From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Mar 6 13:03:09 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:03:09 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] enabling CUDA support In-Reply-To: <49B06D50.2080109@fi.muni.cz> References: <49B06D50.2080109@fi.muni.cz> Message-ID: <49B11F0D.7090209@redhat.com> On 03/05/2009 07:24 PM, Milos Jakubicek wrote: > Now I have a question: as it principally enables the hardware to be > controlled by some end-user applications, would it be possible to ship > the libcudart.so library in a subpackage as "Redistributable, no > modification permitted" like a firmware? Nope. Sorry. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Mar 6 13:04:46 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:04:46 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] "content" in source tarball In-Reply-To: <49B0E15D.2030407@plauener.de> References: <49B0E15D.2030407@plauener.de> Message-ID: <49B11F6E.2060608@redhat.com> On 03/06/2009 03:39 AM, Christian Krause wrote: > The original tarball includes a couple of sample files > with different licenses (some are not acceptable for Fedora). That's why > the tarball gets re-generated without the samples before it gets packaged. So, the question is whether we need to ship a modified tarball or not. I'd need to look at the licenses in order to determine that. ~spot From chkr at plauener.de Fri Mar 6 18:45:05 2009 From: chkr at plauener.de (Christian Krause) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:45:05 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] "content" in source tarball In-Reply-To: <49B11F6E.2060608@redhat.com> References: <49B0E15D.2030407@plauener.de> <49B11F6E.2060608@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49B16F31.2000706@plauener.de> Hello, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 03/06/2009 03:39 AM, Christian Krause wrote: > >> The original tarball includes a couple of sample files >> with different licenses (some are not acceptable for Fedora). That's why >> the tarball gets re-generated without the samples before it gets packaged. >> > > So, the question is whether we need to ship a modified tarball or not. > I'd need to look at the licenses in order to determine that. > I'm sorry, probably there was some misunderstanding: Upstream is willing to to remove all non-GPL samples from the upstream tarball. So the final upstream tarball would still contain "content" files, but all under GPL. However, the packaging guidelines discourage the packaging of any content. So my question is: Is it allowed to have content in the shipped tarball/src.rpm when it is licensed under the GPL? Best regards, Christian From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Mar 6 19:00:52 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:30:52 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Concerns over SIF OFL Message-ID: <49B172E4.1080409@fedoraproject.org> Hi Bruce Perens comments on some loopholes with OFL that allows anyone to use fonts licensed under them as public domain equivalent. Since Fedora has been recommending it over all other font licenses, maybe Red Hat legal should look into it http://lwn.net/Articles/319537/ Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Mar 6 18:55:45 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 13:55:45 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] "content" in source tarball In-Reply-To: <49B16F31.2000706@plauener.de> References: <49B0E15D.2030407@plauener.de> <49B11F6E.2060608@redhat.com> <49B16F31.2000706@plauener.de> Message-ID: <49B171B1.9040504@redhat.com> On 03/06/2009 01:45 PM, Christian Krause wrote: > However, the packaging guidelines discourage the packaging of any > content. So my question is: > > Is it allowed to have content in the shipped tarball/src.rpm when it is > licensed under the GPL? Hmm, I wouldn't say the packaging guidelines discourage the packaging of any content, just that the content needs to be under an acceptable license. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Mar 6 19:01:03 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:01:03 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Concerns over SIF OFL In-Reply-To: <49B172E4.1080409@fedoraproject.org> References: <49B172E4.1080409@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <49B172EF.5030702@redhat.com> On 03/06/2009 02:00 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > Bruce Perens comments on some loopholes with OFL that allows anyone to > use fonts licensed under them as public domain equivalent. Since Fedora > has been recommending it over all other font licenses, maybe Red Hat > legal should look into it I'm not going to lose sleep over Mr. Perens's opinions. ~spot From rfontana at redhat.com Fri Mar 6 19:07:45 2009 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:07:45 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Concerns over SIF OFL In-Reply-To: <49B172E4.1080409@fedoraproject.org> References: <49B172E4.1080409@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20090306140745.3d8af42e@calliope> On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:30:52 +0530 Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Bruce Perens comments on some loopholes with OFL that allows anyone > to use fonts licensed under them as public domain equivalent. Since > Fedora has been recommending it over all other font licenses, maybe > Red Hat legal should look into it > > http://lwn.net/Articles/319537/ We've already looked at this. I do not agree with Bruce's reading of the license. FWIW I think Fedora is correct in recommending the OFL. It is not perfect, but I am unaware of any existing free license for fonts that is better. - RF From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Mar 6 19:18:40 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:48:40 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Concerns over SIF OFL In-Reply-To: <20090306140745.3d8af42e@calliope> References: <49B172E4.1080409@fedoraproject.org> <20090306140745.3d8af42e@calliope> Message-ID: <49B17710.8050309@fedoraproject.org> Richard Fontana wrote: > On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:30:52 +0530 > Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Bruce Perens comments on some loopholes with OFL that allows anyone >> to use fonts licensed under them as public domain equivalent. Since >> Fedora has been recommending it over all other font licenses, maybe >> Red Hat legal should look into it >> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/319537/ > > We've already looked at this. I do not agree with Bruce's reading of > the license. > > FWIW I think Fedora is correct in recommending the OFL. It is not > perfect, but I am unaware of any existing free license for fonts that is > better. Ok, great. Thank you. Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Mar 6 19:14:56 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:14:56 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] "content" in source tarball In-Reply-To: <49B175FC.1010206@fedoraproject.org> References: <49B0E15D.2030407@plauener.de> <49B11F6E.2060608@redhat.com> <49B16F31.2000706@plauener.de> <49B171B1.9040504@redhat.com> <49B175FC.1010206@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <49B17630.6000507@redhat.com> On 03/06/2009 02:14 PM, Christian Krause wrote: > I'm a little bit afraid to violate this rule: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Code_Vs_Content > > especially "All content is subject to review by FESCo, who has the final > say on whether or not it can be included." etc. That just means that FESCo reserves judgement over what is and is not acceptable content. Learning content like you describe would be permissable in the package as long as it is not religious or pornographic. > Would it be necessary to get the content files reviewed in the following > scenario: > > - src.rpm/tarball contains content under GPL > - binary rpm does not Well, we'd still be distributing the content (via the SRPM), so yes, FESCo would still have oversight. ~spot From kwade at redhat.com Fri Mar 6 23:56:56 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 15:56:56 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] "content" in source tarball In-Reply-To: <49B17630.6000507@redhat.com> References: <49B0E15D.2030407@plauener.de> <49B11F6E.2060608@redhat.com> <49B16F31.2000706@plauener.de> <49B171B1.9040504@redhat.com> <49B175FC.1010206@fedoraproject.org> <49B17630.6000507@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090306235656.GF5313@calliope.phig.org> On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 02:14:56PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > That just means that FESCo reserves judgement over what is and is not > acceptable content. For example, the fedora-release-notes package is content. The content provided under /usr/share/doc/ is all packaged. In Fedora 11, the Docs team is working on packages for the Installation Guide, Security Guide, and User Guide, all of which is content. Just FYI. - 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 jonstanley at gmail.com Sat Mar 7 00:39:54 2009 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 19:39:54 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] "content" in source tarball In-Reply-To: <49B17630.6000507@redhat.com> References: <49B0E15D.2030407@plauener.de> <49B11F6E.2060608@redhat.com> <49B16F31.2000706@plauener.de> <49B171B1.9040504@redhat.com> <49B175FC.1010206@fedoraproject.org> <49B17630.6000507@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: >> especially "All content is subject to review by FESCo, who has the final >> say on whether or not it can be included." etc. > > That just means that FESCo reserves judgement over what is and is not > acceptable content. Assuming that the content is acceptable per the guidelines that spot set forth below (not religious, pornographic, or otherwise objectionable - doesn't sound like any of that applies here), I'm fine with including sample files in the application. That falls under the category of "enhancing the OS user experience". From musuruan at gmail.com Mon Mar 9 17:50:11 2009 From: musuruan at gmail.com (Andrea Musuruane) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 18:50:11 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Openstreetmap moving to Open Database License (ODbL) In-Reply-To: <49B0062C.6000201@redhat.com> References: <29fee02b0903050319t67a9508bla71d228556f9df0a@mail.gmail.com> <49B0062C.6000201@redhat.com> Message-ID: <29fee02b0903091050r17826ed0m4a8ced6ad17cb5a7@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > Looking at the Factual Information License, I've got some concerns. I > asked Red Hat Legal to take a look at it, and this was their reply: > > ? ? ? ?I think the problem with this one is that the definition of "Use" > introduces some > ? ? ? ?fundamental uncertainty. ?If it really means "any act that is > restricted by copyright", and > ? ? ? ?this license does seem to be trying to be a copyright license, then > there ought to be no > ? ? ? ?problem, since "Use" should encompass any act of modification that is > restricted by > ? ? ? ?applicable copyright -- e.g. rights to create derivative works under > U.S. copyright law. > ? ? ? ?However, then they bother to say "modifying the Work as may be > technically necessary > ? ? ? ?to use it in a different mode or format". ?That sounds like they might > be implying that > ? ? ? ?broader acts of modification are not within the scope of "Use", despite > the apparent > ? ? ? ?reach of the first part of the definition. ?And if "Use" does indeed > encompass only a > ? ? ? ?proper subset of copyright-law modification acts, then it would be > non-free. While in > ? ? ? ?general that wouldn't necessarily be true, but here the narrow > interpretation suggests it > ? ? ? ?is non-free because the apparently-granted modification rights are too > limited. > > In addition, I'm concerned that there does not appear to be any explicit > grant of permission to redistribute content under the Factual > Information License without restriction. > > (RH Legal is still looking at the ODBL, they should have comments on > that later, which I will pass along). I sent these remarks to the ODC-discuss ML. They have just posted this in reply: http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-March/000066.html They are asking for clarifications. Regards. Bye, Andrea. From rayvd at bludgeon.org Fri Mar 13 04:10:53 2009 From: rayvd at bludgeon.org (Ray Van Dolson) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:10:53 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Changing a license on source with nonresponsive or gone author Message-ID: <20090313041052.GA5364@bludgeon.org> Hi all; This is in regards to an attempt to package figlet[1] for Fedora. It turns out that part of this package[2] is under a non-free license. Attempts to contact the author of this code have been thus far unsuccessful, and I'm wondering as to the best way to proceed. The license currently in place on these files indicate that any changes to the code needs to be emailed to the original author within 30 days. Would this cover licensing changes as well? I'm wondering if we could just change the license on this code, notify the author via the email address provided and call it good (the author's email address isn't bouncing, but appears to be inactive). Another alternative would be to have upstream replace the code with sufficiently free code, or to remove the functionality completely. I am also considering patching out the non-free code myself (since upstream doesn't really have an active maintainer right now as figlet has been pretty stable for years) and doing the release that way. The functionality in question is for decompressing font files which we could easily live without. Could I get some thoughts on the above from this list? Thanks, Ray [1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489830 [2]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489830#c8 From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Mar 13 04:23:33 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:53:33 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Changing a license on source with nonresponsive or gone author In-Reply-To: <20090313041052.GA5364@bludgeon.org> References: <20090313041052.GA5364@bludgeon.org> Message-ID: <49B9DFC5.1060707@fedoraproject.org> Ray Van Dolson wrote: > Hi all; > > This is in regards to an attempt to package figlet[1] for Fedora. It > turns out that part of this package[2] is under a non-free license. > Attempts to contact the author of this code have been thus far > unsuccessful, and I'm wondering as to the best way to proceed. > > The license currently in place on these files indicate that any changes > to the code needs to be emailed to the original author within 30 days. > Would this cover licensing changes as well? I'm wondering if we could > just change the license on this code, notify the author via the email > address provided and call it good (the author's email address isn't > bouncing, but appears to be inactive). IANAL and all that but you cannot do this. > > Another alternative would be to have upstream replace the code with > sufficiently free code, or to remove the functionality completely. This would work and should be your first option > I am also considering patching out the non-free code myself (since > upstream doesn't really have an active maintainer right now as figlet > has been pretty stable for years) and doing the release that way. The > functionality in question is for decompressing font files which we > could easily live without. This would work and seems to be the simplest option. Just comment the spec file. Rahul From tibbs at math.uh.edu Fri Mar 13 04:19:07 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:19:07 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Changing a license on source with nonresponsive or gone author In-Reply-To: <20090313041052.GA5364@bludgeon.org> (Ray Van Dolson's message of "Thu\, 12 Mar 2009 21\:10\:53 -0700") References: <20090313041052.GA5364@bludgeon.org> Message-ID: >>>>> "RVD" == Ray Van Dolson writes: RVD> The license currently in place on these files indicate that any RVD> changes to the code needs to be emailed to the original author RVD> within 30 days. Would this cover licensing changes as well? I cannot imagine a situation in which that would be appropriate. - J< From rfontana at redhat.com Fri Mar 13 04:30:22 2009 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:30:22 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Changing a license on source with nonresponsive or gone author In-Reply-To: <20090313041052.GA5364@bludgeon.org> References: <20090313041052.GA5364@bludgeon.org> Message-ID: <20090313003022.1b69ea37@calliope> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:10:53 -0700 Ray Van Dolson wrote: > Hi all; > > This is in regards to an attempt to package figlet[1] for Fedora. It > turns out that part of this package[2] is under a non-free license. > Attempts to contact the author of this code have been thus far > unsuccessful, and I'm wondering as to the best way to proceed. > > The license currently in place on these files indicate that any > changes to the code needs to be emailed to the original author within > 30 days. Would this cover licensing changes as well? I'm wondering > if we could just change the license on this code, notify the author > via the email address provided and call it good (the author's email > address isn't bouncing, but appears to be inactive). The licensing terms are not part of what you are getting permission to modify (at least in the sense of transforming it into a less restrictive license). So, no. - RF From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat Mar 14 22:51:08 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 04:21:08 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linking vs writing about software Message-ID: <49BC34DC.9020609@fedoraproject.org> Hi Let's say I add some details about creating a movie DVD for home users, I am allowed to do that in the Fedora wiki assuming I don't link to any other website? Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Mar 17 13:58:31 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:28:31 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] [Fwd: Re: MPEG-1 read support] Message-ID: <49BFAC87.8060305@fedoraproject.org> Hi, Something to look at -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Kevin Kofler Subject: Re: MPEG-1 read support Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:48:03 +0100 Size: 6346 URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Mar 17 14:41:07 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:41:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] [Fwd: Re: MPEG-1 read support] In-Reply-To: <49BFAC87.8060305@fedoraproject.org> References: <49BFAC87.8060305@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <49BFB683.5060207@redhat.com> We have reviewed this, and disagree with the assessments made in Wikipedia. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Mar 20 12:52:20 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:52:20 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Heads-up on new Samba4 licence In-Reply-To: <1237515815.7789.653.camel@naomi.s4.naomi.abartlet.net> References: <1229728698.3901.8.camel@naomi.s4.naomi.abartlet.net> <1229874010.19374.56.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1231109625.3641.41.camel@naomi.s4.naomi.abartlet.net> <1231123278.18570.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1237515815.7789.653.camel@naomi.s4.naomi.abartlet.net> Message-ID: <49C39184.2020804@redhat.com> On 03/19/2009 10:23 PM, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > Is there a particular licence tag I should use to indicate the presence > of this content under it's different licence? No. ~spot From spurath at students.uni-mainz.de Sat Mar 21 15:01:49 2009 From: spurath at students.uni-mainz.de (Thomas Spura) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:01:49 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] "Microsoft TrueType Fonts" a Good Licence? Message-ID: <1237647710.2999.1.camel@didymus> Hi, I need to know, if "Microsoft TrueType Fonts" are a Good Licence in order to allow packaging from ROOT (http://root.cern.ch). It is not on page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing so I ask this list. A copy of the licence is there: http://fontconfig.org/webfonts/Licen.TXT Thanks in advance, Thomas From jwboyer at gmail.com Sat Mar 21 15:07:34 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:07:34 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] "Microsoft TrueType Fonts" a Good Licence? In-Reply-To: <1237647710.2999.1.camel@didymus> References: <1237647710.2999.1.camel@didymus> Message-ID: <20090321150734.GC28465@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 04:01:49PM +0100, Thomas Spura wrote: >Hi, > >I need to know, if "Microsoft TrueType Fonts" are a Good Licence in >order to allow packaging from ROOT (http://root.cern.ch). >It is not on page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing so I ask this >list. > >A copy of the licence is there: http://fontconfig.org/webfonts/Licen.TXT No. It has a not-for-profit clause, and a no-modification clause. josh From oget.fedora at gmail.com Sun Mar 22 20:03:47 2009 From: oget.fedora at gmail.com (Orcan Ogetbil) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:03:47 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] how artistic is this license? Message-ID: While I was packaging frinika [1], I realized that one of its dependencies, mrjadapter [2], comes with some "Artistic License" [3]. I can't tell what version of "Artistic License" this is. Can you tell me if this is free or not; and if not, can you tell me what makes it nonfree so I can inform frinika developers about it? Thanks, Orcan [1] http://frinika.appspot.com/ [2] http://homepage.mac.com/sroy/mrjadapter/ [3] http://homepage.mac.com/sroy/artisticlicense.html From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Mar 23 13:13:37 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:13:37 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] how artistic is this license? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49C78B01.6050504@redhat.com> On 03/22/2009 04:03 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > While I was packaging frinika [1], I realized that one of its > dependencies, mrjadapter [2], comes with some "Artistic License" [3]. > > I can't tell what version of "Artistic License" this is. Can you tell > me if this is free or not; and if not, can you tell me what makes it > nonfree so I can inform frinika developers about it? > > Thanks, > Orcan > > > [1] http://frinika.appspot.com/ > [2] http://homepage.mac.com/sroy/mrjadapter/ > [3] http://homepage.mac.com/sroy/artisticlicense.html It looks like a modified version of Artistic 1.0. It is missing the original clause 8, and big chunks of 7 and 6. Unfortunately, removing sections from Artistic 1.0 is not enough to make it free, if anything, it makes the intent less clear. As the FSF says: "We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is too vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is not clear." Here is the text from the Release Notes for Fedora 10 about the removal of all Artistic 1.0 code from Fedora: We no longer permit code in Fedora under the Artistic 1.0 license for a variety of reasons: 1. The FSF says it is not a free license. They say that the text is vague, and that it is open to misinterpretation. 2. The Perl community agrees with this assessment. They went so far as to rewrite the Artistic license to resolve all the identified problems (see http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0). 3. The OSI has "superseded" the license, recommending strongly that all users move to Artistic 2.0: http://opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php ~spot From rdieter at math.unl.edu Mon Mar 23 13:59:07 2009 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:59:07 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] media metadata parsing/editing Message-ID: The amarok project includes code that parses metadata/tags for various media formats, including asf, audiofile(?), mp4, rm, wav. no decoding/demuxing is involved. In particular, this affects a new amarok dependency, recently submitted for review, taglib-extras: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/491647 I know I asked spot awhile back(1), but I'd like it reviewed publically... (esp for the benefit of amarok upstream and other distros considering including this) -- Rex (1) My recollection was to (at least) not touch asf with a 10-foot pole. From rdieter at math.unl.edu Mon Mar 23 14:13:44 2009 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:13:44 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: media metadata parsing/editing References: Message-ID: Rex Dieter wrote: > The amarok project includes code that parses metadata/tags for various > media > formats, including asf, audiofile(?), mp4, rm, wav. no decoding/demuxing > is involved. > > In particular, this affects a new amarok dependency, recently submitted > for review, taglib-extras: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/491647 spot-be-nimble, spot-be-quick, already lifted FE-legal, here, thanks! -- Rex From rdieter at math.unl.edu Mon Mar 23 14:17:58 2009 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:17:58 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: media metadata parsing/editing References: Message-ID: Rex Dieter wrote: > The amarok project includes code that parses metadata/tags for various > media > formats, including asf, audiofile(?), mp4, rm, wav. no decoding/demuxing > is involved. ... > I know I asked spot awhile back(1), but I'd like it reviewed publically... > (esp for the benefit of amarok upstream and other distros considering > including this) ... > (1) My recollection was to (at least) not touch asf with a 10-foot pole. For completeness and posterity, here's the feedback I offerred back to taglib upstream in Apr '08: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/taglib-devel/2008-April/000931.html Maybe the situation has changed since. -- Rex From robertsong.linux at gmail.com Wed Mar 25 13:20:04 2009 From: robertsong.linux at gmail.com (robert song) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:20:04 +0900 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] question about patent In-Reply-To: <3e004f8e0903230838s1839cd91m94b063ba5e5858be@mail.gmail.com> References: <3e004f8e0903230838s1839cd91m94b063ba5e5858be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3e004f8e0903250620o6bb19e70lf2f136e40390efbf@mail.gmail.com> Hello, everyone. Now I am using Pettis-Hansen method as follows to reorder functions. http://www.cs.virginia.edu/kim/courses/cs771/papers/pettis90profile.pdf But I found that the algorithm has its patent as below. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0459192.html So if I use this algorithm in my codes, it will infringe the HP patent. Does it mean that this algorithm can not be used in codes ? Is there any method to solve this problem ? Best wishes, robert From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Mar 25 14:02:18 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:02:18 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] question about patent In-Reply-To: <3e004f8e0903250620o6bb19e70lf2f136e40390efbf@mail.gmail.com> References: <3e004f8e0903230838s1839cd91m94b063ba5e5858be@mail.gmail.com> <3e004f8e0903250620o6bb19e70lf2f136e40390efbf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49CA396A.7010505@redhat.com> On 03/25/2009 09:20 AM, robert song wrote: > Hello, everyone. > Now I am using Pettis-Hansen method as follows to reorder functions. > http://www.cs.virginia.edu/kim/courses/cs771/papers/pettis90profile.pdf > > But I found that the algorithm has its patent as below. > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0459192.html > > So if I use this algorithm in my codes, it will infringe the HP patent. > Does it mean that this algorithm can not be used in codes ? > Is there any method to solve this problem ? Keep in mind that I Am Not A Lawyer (IANAL), and this should not be taken as Legal Advice. I'm assuming you're in Europe, because you've cited a European Patent (0459192). That patent appears to have lapsed, due to HP not paying the European Patent Renewal Fee: http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc;jsessionid=1073239D43DF1FEB82A4A485C46566E1.espacenet_levelx_prod_5?CC=EP&NR=0459192A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=19911204&DB=&locale= I would still recommend that you talk to a patent lawyer in your jurisdiction. The situation is different in the US. That patent appears to be the same as US Patent 5212794, which expires on June 1, 2010. This means that even if you legally implemented Pettis-Hansen in Europe, Fedora would not be able to include your code (until June 1, 2010) without an unrestricted patent grant. You would need to request that from HP, although, I have no idea who at HP you could talk to about that, nor if they would be willing. ~spot From tibbs at math.uh.edu Wed Mar 25 22:48:41 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:48:41 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License compatibility and preloaded libraries Message-ID: I've found a package that contains a a library intended to be shimmed into the system with LD_PRELOAD. The library itself is under the CPL license. Are there any troubling issues surrounding dynamic linking of a CPL-licensed library in this manner? My take on this is that we couldn't link CPL code with, say, GPL code together and distribute the resulting binary, but when the end user performs that linking by setting LD_PRELOAD and running a binary, they aren't distributing the result so there's no license violation. It's all pretty much beyond me, though. - J< From xjakub at fi.muni.cz Thu Mar 26 08:51:08 2009 From: xjakub at fi.muni.cz (Milos Jakubicek) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:51:08 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Speech recognition In-Reply-To: <20090326001722.GB98926@dspnet.fr.eu.org> References: <870180fe0903251544h1bf98930h17a037a5225338ec@mail.gmail.com> <20090326001722.GB98926@dspnet.fr.eu.org> Message-ID: <49CB41FC.6030902@fi.muni.cz> Olivier Galibert wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 04:44:20PM -0600, Jerry James wrote: >> Is anybody interested in working with me on getting some voice >> recognition product packaged up in usable form on Fedora? > > For speech recognition, software is only part of the problem and, > fundamentally, the easiest one (take the algorithms, implement them, > optimize/debug at will). The real problem is the data needed to build > the models to feed the algorithms. There isn't as far as I know any > reasonable set of corpus available under an open source license usable > to build a decent speech recognizer. Which makes open source speech > recognition something not doable yet. > > OG. (I'm sorry for cross-posting to fedora-legal) Well, the most interesting question here for me is what about licensing such language models -- could they be considered to be firmware (redistributable, not modifiable)? This is important also because of their size (shipping 1G+ corpora, even compressed, is probably not a right way to go). Regards, Milos From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Mar 26 09:20:39 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:50:39 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Speech recognition In-Reply-To: <49CB41FC.6030902@fi.muni.cz> References: <870180fe0903251544h1bf98930h17a037a5225338ec@mail.gmail.com> <20090326001722.GB98926@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <49CB41FC.6030902@fi.muni.cz> Message-ID: <49CB48E7.3020905@fedoraproject.org> Milos Jakubicek wrote: > Olivier Galibert wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 04:44:20PM -0600, Jerry James wrote: >>> Is anybody interested in working with me on getting some voice >>> recognition product packaged up in usable form on Fedora? >> >> For speech recognition, software is only part of the problem and, >> fundamentally, the easiest one (take the algorithms, implement them, >> optimize/debug at will). The real problem is the data needed to build >> the models to feed the algorithms. There isn't as far as I know any >> reasonable set of corpus available under an open source license usable >> to build a decent speech recognizer. Which makes open source speech >> recognition something not doable yet. >> >> OG. > > (I'm sorry for cross-posting to fedora-legal) > > Well, the most interesting question here for me is what about licensing > such language models -- could they be considered to be firmware > (redistributable, not modifiable)? No. They are not firmware and cannot be considered as one. Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Mar 26 10:35:40 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:35:40 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License compatibility and preloaded libraries In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49CB5A7C.3030706@redhat.com> On 03/25/2009 06:48 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I've found a package that contains a a library intended to be shimmed > into the system with LD_PRELOAD. The library itself is under the CPL > license. Are there any troubling issues surrounding dynamic linking of a > CPL-licensed library in this manner? > > My take on this is that we couldn't link CPL code with, say, GPL code > together and distribute the resulting binary, but when the end user > performs that linking by setting LD_PRELOAD and running a binary, they > aren't distributing the result so there's no license violation. It's > all pretty much beyond me, though. Any chance I can see the package in question? ~spot From dan at danny.cz Thu Mar 26 10:48:52 2009 From: dan at danny.cz (Dan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hor=E1k?=) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:48:52 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License compatibility and preloaded libraries In-Reply-To: <49CB5A7C.3030706@redhat.com> References: <49CB5A7C.3030706@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1238064532.3602.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Tom "spot" Callaway p??e v ?t 26. 03. 2009 v 06:35 -0400: > On 03/25/2009 06:48 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > I've found a package that contains a a library intended to be shimmed > > into the system with LD_PRELOAD. The library itself is under the CPL > > license. Are there any troubling issues surrounding dynamic linking of a > > CPL-licensed library in this manner? > > > > My take on this is that we couldn't link CPL code with, say, GPL code > > together and distribute the resulting binary, but when the end user > > performs that linking by setting LD_PRELOAD and running a binary, they > > aren't distributing the result so there's no license violation. It's > > all pretty much beyond me, though. > > Any chance I can see the package in question? The preloaded library is src_vipa.so from s390utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458826 https://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23348 Dan From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Thu Mar 26 23:54:37 2009 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:54:37 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Repackaging mono to include support for Silverlight Message-ID: <1238111677.17087.197.camel@PB3.Linux> i, I've had a request from rpmfusion to rebuild mono with the --with-moonlight flag set. This builds in the functionality required to build Silverlight on rpmfusion. I am aware that Fedora itself cannot have Silverlight in (the licence is the MS "shared source" (cough) licence) due to the potential for MS to do it's usual trick of going back on their word and applying patents to cause problems. While adding in the smcs and silverlight code possibly does not break any of the fedora rules, I am of the thinking that we don't add the flag for the same reason that we have disabled xmms for mp3; it has the potential to cause us problems. If I get the okay to build mono with the flag, I will. TTFN Paul -- ?Sie k?nnen mich aufreizen und wirklich hei? machen! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Mar 27 01:20:22 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:20:22 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Repackaging mono to include support for Silverlight In-Reply-To: <1238111677.17087.197.camel@PB3.Linux> References: <1238111677.17087.197.camel@PB3.Linux> Message-ID: <49CC29D6.4060702@redhat.com> On 03/26/2009 07:54 PM, Paul wrote: > If I get the okay to build mono with the flag, I will. I've explained the situation to Red Hat Legal, and I'll let you know what they say. Thanks, ~spot From kevin.kofler at chello.at Sat Mar 28 00:03:41 2009 From: kevin.kofler at chello.at (Kevin Kofler) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:03:41 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Re: Speech recognition References: <870180fe0903251544h1bf98930h17a037a5225338ec@mail.gmail.com> <20090326001722.GB98926@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <49CB41FC.6030902@fi.muni.cz> <49CB48E7.3020905@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: Rahul Sundaram wrote: > No. They are not firmware and cannot be considered as one. They are not firmware, but are they "content"? Non-code "content", e.g. game data, is allowed under the same rules as firmware. On the other hand, this does not apply for things like fonts or documentation. Kevin Kofler From xjakub at fi.muni.cz Sat Mar 28 00:42:03 2009 From: xjakub at fi.muni.cz (Milos Jakubicek) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:42:03 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Speech recognition In-Reply-To: References: <870180fe0903251544h1bf98930h17a037a5225338ec@mail.gmail.com> <20090326001722.GB98926@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <49CB41FC.6030902@fi.muni.cz> <49CB48E7.3020905@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <49CD725B.1090309@fi.muni.cz> Kevin Kofler wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> No. They are not firmware and cannot be considered as one. > > They are not firmware, but are they "content"? Non-code "content", e.g. game > data, is allowed under the same rules as firmware. On the other hand, this > does not apply for things like fonts or documentation. Yes yes, that's what I meant by "considering to be firmware"...thank you Kevin for clarification. What's the (juristic) difference between game data and speech recognition data (or in common any scientific appplications data)? This is a common situation in many scientific apps (especially natural language processing): the code is not important (and thus released under GPL or whatever else), what matters is data (thus if released, then only in binary form). Regards, Milos From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat Mar 28 01:50:34 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 07:20:34 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Speech recognition In-Reply-To: References: <870180fe0903251544h1bf98930h17a037a5225338ec@mail.gmail.com> <20090326001722.GB98926@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <49CB41FC.6030902@fi.muni.cz> <49CB48E7.3020905@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <49CD826A.1040109@fedoraproject.org> Kevin Kofler wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> No. They are not firmware and cannot be considered as one. > > They are not firmware, but are they "content"? Non-code "content", e.g. game > data, is allowed under the same rules as firmware. On the other hand, this > does not apply for things like fonts or documentation. I am not sure, any games are carrying non modifiable content. Which ones are talking about? Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat Mar 28 02:47:29 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:17:29 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora guidelines on patents Message-ID: <49CD8FC1.1070202@fedoraproject.org> Hi Looks like we are getting a lot of discussions on patents in fedora-devel list now. Perhaps the section on patents can explicitly mention our stand point on patents a bit more clearer? I am thinking of something like the following within the guidelines or in a separate page references by the guidelines: --- Any patent system that allows patents over software (Not just US but other countries around the world) is flawed and it is almost impossible to develop any complex software without infringing on patents and this is a pretty difficult problem especially for Free and open source software. The Fedora policy is that we will try to avoid patent infringement issues by refraining from including software that has patent encumbered components where the patent owners are known to be aggressive and are enforcing the patents actively. If you suspect that you might be including code that is affected by patents such aggressive enforcers, it is recommend that you contact Fedora Legal in private (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal#Contact) since raising these issues in a public forum can draw the attention of patent owners and bring unnecessary legal trouble to developers. Free software developers should avoid trying to do the patent searches themselves. Many software patents are unenforceable or invalid but knowingly infringing on patents will have a higher penalty in many legal systems (In US, you will have to pay triple damages). There are multiple ways of dealing with problematic patent issues. a) get the patent owners to license the patents in writing in way that is compatible with free and open source including but not limited to the requirements of GPL license (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Patented_Software). b) upstream developers might be able to use a plugin system and Fedora can simply refrain from including those plugins. Users from regions where software patents are not valid can continue using such plugins obtained from third party repositories. This is the case for multimedia frameworks such as gstreamer included in Fedora c) upstream developers might be able to workaround the patent by using a different implementation technique. You must coordinate with professional legal people on this. d) find prior art that invalidates those patents with the help of professional legal people. --- Comments? Rahul From kevin.kofler at chello.at Sat Mar 28 02:34:27 2009 From: kevin.kofler at chello.at (Kevin Kofler) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 03:34:27 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Speech recognition References: <870180fe0903251544h1bf98930h17a037a5225338ec@mail.gmail.com> <20090326001722.GB98926@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <49CB41FC.6030902@fi.muni.cz> <49CB48E7.3020905@fedoraproject.org> <49CD826A.1040109@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: Rahul Sundaram wrote: > I am not sure, any games are carrying non modifiable content. Which ones > are talking about? Plenty of them. I forgot which ones exactly. Just check a few of them and I'm sure you'll find some. Or ask the Games SIG. Kevin Kofler From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat Mar 28 02:57:31 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:27:31 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Move code vs content into licensing guidelines Message-ID: <49CD921B.6030104@fedoraproject.org> Hi This entire section would be a better fit as part of the licensing guidelines, IMO. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Code_Vs_Content The distinction is important because packaging committee is not in charge of the licensing guidelines. Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat Mar 28 03:06:36 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:36:36 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Speech recognition In-Reply-To: References: <870180fe0903251544h1bf98930h17a037a5225338ec@mail.gmail.com> <20090326001722.GB98926@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <49CB41FC.6030902@fi.muni.cz> <49CB48E7.3020905@fedoraproject.org> <49CD826A.1040109@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <49CD943C.3060207@fedoraproject.org> Kevin Kofler wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> I am not sure, any games are carrying non modifiable content. Which ones >> are talking about? > > Plenty of them. I forgot which ones exactly. Just check a few of them and > I'm sure you'll find some. Or ask the Games SIG. Ah yes, we do have some content which are just distributable. Rahul From atorkhov at gmail.com Sat Mar 28 12:29:17 2009 From: atorkhov at gmail.com (Alexey Torkhov) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:29:17 +0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GPL exceptions for kvirc Message-ID: <1238243357.7555.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hi. I'm looking over kvirc package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492690 and it contains GPL license with following addition: --- 13. As a special exception, Szymon Stefanek gives permission to link this program with Qt non-commercial edition for Windows, and distribute the resulting executable, without including the source code for the Qt non-commercial edition in the source distribution. The Qt non-commercial edition library is covered by the Qt Non-Commercial license. See http://www.trolltech.com for informations. 14. As a special exception, Szymon Stefanek gives permission to link this program with the OpenSSL project's "OpenSSL" library (or with modified versions of it that use the same license as the "OpenSSL" library), and distribute the linked executables. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than "OpenSSL". If you modify file(s), you may extend this exception to your version of the file(s), but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. --- Will it be appropriate to use "GPLv2+ with exceptions" as license field? Full text of their license could be found here: https://svn.kvirc.de/kvirc/browser/trunk/kvirc/doc/COPYING?rev=2469 It is a bit strange that openssl is incompatible with GPL. It looks to me that quite some number of GPLed projects could use openssl without noticing this. Alexey From ianweller at gmail.com Sat Mar 28 18:07:42 2009 From: ianweller at gmail.com (Ian Weller) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:07:42 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] lcc Message-ID: <20090328180742.GA24809@gmail.com> See attached license. This comes with tremulous and (soon to be packaged) tremfusion. tremulous currently deals with this license as being non-free and removing it from the tarball. I'd like to double check whether or not this is free, and if not, why not. -- Ian Weller GnuPG fingerprint: E51E 0517 7A92 70A2 4226 B050 87ED 7C97 EFA8 4A36 -------------- next part -------------- The authors of this software are Christopher W. Fraser and David R. Hanson. Copyright (c) 1991,1992,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998 by AT&T, Christopher W. Fraser, and David R. Hanson. All Rights Reserved. Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose, subject to the provisions described below, without fee is hereby granted, provided that this entire notice is included in all copies of any software that is or includes a copy or modification of this software and in all copies of the supporting documentation for such software. THIS SOFTWARE IS BEING PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY. IN PARTICULAR, NEITHER THE AUTHORS NOR AT&T MAKE ANY REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE MERCHANTABILITY OF THIS SOFTWARE OR ITS FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. lcc is not public-domain software, shareware, and it is not protected by a `copyleft' agreement, like the code from the Free Software Foundation. lcc is available free for your personal research and instructional use under the `fair use' provisions of the copyright law. You may, however, redistribute lcc in whole or in part provided you acknowledge its source and include this CPYRIGHT file. You may, for example, include the distribution in a CDROM of free software, provided you charge only for the media, or mirror the distribution files at your site. You may not sell lcc or any product derived from it in which it is a significant part of the value of the product. Using the lcc front end to build a C syntax checker is an example of this kind of product. You may use parts of lcc in products as long as you charge for only those components that are entirely your own and you acknowledge the use of lcc clearly in all product documentation and distribution media. You must state clearly that your product uses or is based on parts of lcc and that lcc is available free of charge. You must also request that bug reports on your product be reported to you. Using the lcc front end to build a C compiler for the Motorola 88000 chip and charging for and distributing only the 88000 code generator is an example of this kind of product. Using parts of lcc in other products is more problematic. For example, using parts of lcc in a C++ compiler could save substantial time and effort and therefore contribute significantly to the profitability of the product. This kind of use, or any use where others stand to make a profit from what is primarily our work, requires a license agreement with Addison-Wesley. Per-copy and unlimited use licenses are available; for more information, contact J. Carter Shanklin Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. 2725 Sand Hill Rd. Menlo Park, CA 94025 650/854-0300 x2478 FAX: 650/614-2930 jcs at awl.com ----- Chris Fraser / cwfraser at microsoft.com David Hanson / drh at microsoft.com $Revision: 145 $ $Date: 2001-10-17 16:53:10 -0500 (Wed, 17 Oct 2001) $ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From luis at tieguy.org Sat Mar 28 18:16:39 2009 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:16:39 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] lcc In-Reply-To: <20090328180742.GA24809@gmail.com> References: <20090328180742.GA24809@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440903281116t14b7e22di6d697de3471c3bca@mail.gmail.com> 2009/3/28 Ian Weller : > See attached license. This comes with tremulous and (soon to be > packaged) tremfusion. tremulous currently deals with this license as > being non-free and removing it from the tarball. > > I'd like to double check whether or not this is free, and if not, why > not. Definitely not free. Primary problem: "You may not sell lcc or any product derived from it in which it is a significant part of the value of the product." There are other problematic restrictions, but that's the big one. Luis From tcallawa at redhat.com Sat Mar 28 18:32:54 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:32:54 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GPL exceptions for kvirc In-Reply-To: <1238243357.7555.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1238243357.7555.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <49CE6D56.2020509@redhat.com> On 03/28/2009 08:29 AM, Alexey Torkhov wrote: > Will it be appropriate to use "GPLv2+ with exceptions" as license field? Yes, that is correct. Thanks, ~spot From scottsiu at 126.com Tue Mar 31 10:42:05 2009 From: scottsiu at 126.com (scottsiu) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:42:05 +0800 (CST) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] What should we do to use fedora like this? Message-ID: <5389938.421121238496125554.JavaMail.coremail@bj126app103.126.com> Dear sir: We are Guangtian technology Ltd. Co., a System Integrator in China, and we have a issue on selling Fedora. We want to ask for your advice. A local notebook PC producer, which we did technical support for, wants to pre-install Fedora in their computers before selling them. We pre-install Fedora(community version) and add driver accordingly prior to sales. Can we use community version like that? Do we need to do something before that? Best regards, Scott Siu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Mar 31 10:58:16 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:28:16 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] What should we do to use fedora like this? In-Reply-To: <5389938.421121238496125554.JavaMail.coremail@bj126app103.126.com> References: <5389938.421121238496125554.JavaMail.coremail@bj126app103.126.com> Message-ID: <49D1F748.4020208@fedoraproject.org> scottsiu wrote: > > > Dear sir: > We are Guangtian technology Ltd. Co., a System Integrator in China, and > we have a issue on selling Fedora. We want to ask for your advice. > A local notebook PC producer, which we did technical support for, wants > to pre-install Fedora in their computers before selling them. We > pre-install Fedora(community version) and add driver accordingly prior > to sales. > Can we use community version like that? Do we need to do something > before that? You are permitted to do this but understand the trademark guidelines first http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/TrademarkGuidelines Rahul From rfontana at redhat.com Tue Mar 31 11:39:34 2009 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 07:39:34 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] What should we do to use fedora like this? In-Reply-To: <49D1F748.4020208@fedoraproject.org> References: <5389938.421121238496125554.JavaMail.coremail@bj126app103.126.com> <49D1F748.4020208@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20090331073934.3e633076@calliope> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:28:16 +0530 Rahul Sundaram wrote: > scottsiu wrote: > > > > > > Dear sir: > > We are Guangtian technology Ltd. Co., a System Integrator in China, > > and we have a issue on selling Fedora. We want to ask for your > > advice. A local notebook PC producer, which we did technical > > support for, wants to pre-install Fedora in their computers before > > selling them. We pre-install Fedora(community version) and add > > driver accordingly prior to sales. > > Can we use community version like that? Do we need to do something > > before that? > > You are permitted to do this but understand the trademark guidelines > first > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/TrademarkGuidelines Also, the licenses applicable to most Fedora packages include source code distribution requirements. - RF From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Mar 31 22:06:41 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:06:41 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Repackaging mono to include support for Silverlight In-Reply-To: <1238111677.17087.197.camel@PB3.Linux> References: <1238111677.17087.197.camel@PB3.Linux> Message-ID: <49D293F1.204@redhat.com> On 03/26/2009 07:54 PM, Paul wrote: > If I get the okay to build mono with the flag, I will. You have the okay to build mono with that flag. The actual moonlight code is still not permissable in Fedora though. ~spot From gnomeuser at gmail.com Mon Mar 30 11:37:55 2009 From: gnomeuser at gmail.com (David Nielsen) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:37:55 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Potential problem with Bitttorrent DHT Message-ID: <1dedbbfc0903300437o39358fd7ue3329a3193aefb44@mail.gmail.com> As is pointed out by upstream for Monsoon, Novell have disallowed DHT implementation from the openSUSE repos based on a legal risk as assessed by openSUSE Legal. The precise nature of the problem is unclear from the initial mail but Alan McGovern says he will provide information to interested parties, as such I would like some input from Fedora Legal if the problem applies to Fedora as well. Relevant information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492297 http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-gnome/2009-03/msg00048.html Regards, David Nielsen (I am not on the list so please CC me) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: