From bkearney at redhat.com Mon Nov 2 14:11:08 2009 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:11:08 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Is this the MIT license? Message-ID: <4AEEE87C.4060805@redhat.com> Not labeled as such, but I am pretty sure it is: http://github.com/ffi/ffi/blob/master/LICENSE -- bk From rfontana at redhat.com Mon Nov 2 15:00:39 2009 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:00:39 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Is this the MIT license? In-Reply-To: <4AEEE87C.4060805@redhat.com> References: <4AEEE87C.4060805@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091102100039.7b85fd5b@calliope> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:11:08 -0500 Bryan Kearney wrote: > Not labeled as such, but I am pretty sure it is: > > http://github.com/ffi/ffi/blob/master/LICENSE No, BSD. - RF From bkearney at redhat.com Mon Nov 2 15:07:57 2009 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:07:57 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Is this the MIT license? In-Reply-To: <20091102100039.7b85fd5b@calliope> References: <4AEEE87C.4060805@redhat.com> <20091102100039.7b85fd5b@calliope> Message-ID: <4AEEF5CD.3080309@redhat.com> On 11/02/2009 10:00 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:11:08 -0500 > Bryan Kearney wrote: > >> Not labeled as such, but I am pretty sure it is: >> >> http://github.com/ffi/ffi/blob/master/LICENSE > > No, BSD. > > - RF ok.. but ok for Fedora? -- bk From bkearney at redhat.com Mon Nov 2 15:08:51 2009 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:08:51 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Is this the MIT license? In-Reply-To: <4AEEF5CD.3080309@redhat.com> References: <4AEEE87C.4060805@redhat.com> <20091102100039.7b85fd5b@calliope> <4AEEF5CD.3080309@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AEEF603.4050204@redhat.com> On 11/02/2009 10:07 AM, Bryan Kearney wrote: > On 11/02/2009 10:00 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:11:08 -0500 >> Bryan Kearney wrote: >> >>> Not labeled as such, but I am pretty sure it is: >>> >>> http://github.com/ffi/ffi/blob/master/LICENSE >> >> No, BSD. >> >> - RF > ok.. but ok for Fedora? > > -- bk > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-legal-list mailing list > Fedora-legal-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list Nm.. I found it.. thanks. -- bk From chkr at fedoraproject.org Mon Nov 2 21:53:40 2009 From: chkr at fedoraproject.org (Christian Krause) Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:53:40 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] XSkat license Message-ID: <4AEF54E4.2080301@fedoraproject.org> Hi, I'd like to package the card game "xskat": ( http://www.xskat.de/xskat.html ) which is distributed under the following license: ------------------------------------------------------------- This program is free software; you can redistribute it freely. Use it at your own risk; there is NO WARRANTY. Redistribution of modified versions is permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. All copyright & permission notices are preserved. 2.a) Only changes required for packaging or porting are made. or 2.b) It is clearly stated who last changed the program. The program is renamed or the version number is of the form x.y.z, where x.y is the version of the original program and z is an arbitrary suffix. ------------------------------------------------------------- Both Debian and Mandriva are shipping it, so it looks like that for them the license is acceptable. ;-) Is this license acceptable for Fedora too and if yes, what should I put in RPM's License tag? Do we have to handle the version in the rpm package differently or can we assume that our regular NVR is sufficient to fulfill 2.b? Best regards, Christian From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Nov 3 14:07:47 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:07:47 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] XSkat license In-Reply-To: <4AEF54E4.2080301@fedoraproject.org> References: <4AEF54E4.2080301@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4AF03933.4010900@redhat.com> On 11/02/2009 04:53 PM, Christian Krause wrote: > Is this license acceptable for Fedora too and if yes, what should I put > in RPM's License tag? If (and only if) clause 2.b is used instead of clause 2.a (the license explicitly gives you a choice), then the license is Free but GPL incompatible. I've added it to the list as "XSkat", use that in the License tag. > Do we have to handle the version in the rpm package differently or can > we assume that our regular NVR is sufficient to fulfill 2.b? You do need to handle it differently. I suggest that you simply always add a .0 to the end of the upstream version in the RPM package. You need to do this, and not simply use the regular NVR to fulfill 2.b, because the license explicitly specifies the versioning schema x.y.z, which is different from how RPM displays it (x.y-z). Just add a dummy .0 to the end of the version then increment the Release field like any other package. The RPM changelog is sufficient to meet the other requirement of 2.b, to "clearly state who last changed the program". The license page for XSkat also covers this, in case any other program uses this license (or code from XSkat). ~spot From david at gnsa.us Tue Nov 3 21:25:01 2009 From: david at gnsa.us (David Nalley) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:25:01 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Hopefully simple GPL licensing question re Netomata Message-ID: So I started looking at packaging Netomata ( http://www.netomata.com/products/ncg ) and came across something that raises a flag. The author is also at a conference with me this week, so I figured the face time would be a good time to request a change if something is required. The question I have, is does the 'All Rights Reserved' in each source file conflict with the GPLv3 that they claim the package is released under, and is it a problem wrt Packaging Guidelines. In the header of each source file appears: # $Id: ncg 335 2009-04-13 22:40:31Z brent $ # Copyright (C) 2008, 2009 Netomata, Inc. All Rights Reserved. # Please review accompanying 'LICENSE' file or # http://www.netomata.com/docs/licenses/ncg for important notices, # disclaimers, and license terms. There is no mention of GPLv$ in the source itself. LICENSE contains: Netomata Config Generator (NCG) License ======================================= Copyright (C) 2008, 2009 Netomata, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Netomata Config Generator (NCG) is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 3, as published by the Free Software Foundation. Netomata Config Generator (NCG) is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND (without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE), either express or implied, unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing. See the GNU General Public License, version 3, for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License, version 3, along with Netomata Config Generator (NCG), in the file named "COPYING". If not, see . For any other questions or comments, please contact us at: Netomata, Inc. 2601C Blanding Ave., #327 Alameda, CA 94501 USA Web http://www.netomata.com/ Phone +1 510 355 0123 Fax +1 510 355 0134 Email license at netomata.com and of course 'COPYING' is contained in source and has GPLv3 in it. From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Nov 3 21:42:22 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:42:22 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Hopefully simple GPL licensing question re Netomata In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AF0A3BE.7080609@redhat.com> On 11/03/2009 04:25 PM, David Nalley wrote: > So I started looking at packaging Netomata ( > http://www.netomata.com/products/ncg ) and came across something that > raises a flag. The author is also at a conference with me this week, > so I figured the face time would be a good time to request a change if > something is required. > > The question I have, is does the 'All Rights Reserved' in each source > file conflict with the GPLv3 that they claim the package is released > under, and is it a problem wrt Packaging Guidelines. Well, they really should drop the "All Rights Reserved", it is no longer necessary (see: http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/All_rights_reserved). It is a potential source of confusion, since the GPL grants some rights to the user which are normally only available to the copyright holder. However, strictly speaking, it is not a problem for Fedora in this case, since the "all rights reserved", just means that the copyright holder hasn't waived those rights (and the GPLv3 doesn't actually waive any rights). It's a balancing act though, which is why I'd strongly recommend that they drop the "All Rights Reserved" wording to eliminate all confusion. ~spot From three at threethirty.us Fri Nov 6 20:32:40 2009 From: three at threethirty.us (three at threethirty.us) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:32:40 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] RE: [SPAM] Fedora-legal-list Digest, Vol 29, Issue 3 Message-ID: <20091106133239.75617078d840fa9b604fb76173ae1e2a.f1edacb4e2.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tibbs at math.uh.edu Sat Nov 7 15:26:43 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:26:43 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Combining copyrights on Erlang source files Message-ID: A question occurred to me after doing a review recently about whether Erlang source is compiled and linked together like C source or whether the source files remain separate like, say, Python. The issue is an Erlang package where some source files are LGPLv3+ but one is GPLv2+. I took the safe route and assumed that the final result is GPLv3+, but unfortunately I don't quite know enough about either Erlang or the actual legal threshold at which the sources are considered to be commingled. When I look at the compiled application, it looks as if each of the .erl files gets turned into a .beam file, and those files look to be kept separate in the final package. The ticket, with a package you can build, is at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502991 - J< From lemenkov at gmail.com Sat Nov 7 16:10:11 2009 From: lemenkov at gmail.com (Peter Lemenkov) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 19:10:11 +0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Combining copyrights on Erlang source files In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello All! 2009/11/7 Jason L Tibbitts III : > A question occurred to me after doing a review recently about whether > Erlang source is compiled and linked together like C source or whether > the source files remain separate like, say, Python. ?The issue is an > Erlang package where some source files are LGPLv3+ but one is GPLv2+. ?I > took the safe route and assumed that the final result is GPLv3+, but > unfortunately I don't quite know enough about either Erlang or the > actual legal threshold at which the sources are considered to be > commingled. ?When I look at the compiled application, it looks as if > each of the .erl files gets turned into a .beam file, and those files > look to be kept separate in the final package. Well, I've got some erlang experience, so I could say something here. To illuminate the situation with Erlang and different licensing scheme for its modules, I would like to describe some basics of erlang binaries. * Every erlang binary is made from the only source file, and none of them has two or more sources of origin ("include" statement does work like similar directive in C/C++, although direct copying of other valid erlang *.erl file is not possible - so they do independent of each other). * Every binary file is self-sufficient entity and doesn't require that other modules must exist (however the proper work in this case would be highly unlikely). Erlang virtual machine doesn't use any kind of (pre)linking. Modules completely independent from each other, although may include mentioning/invocation of each other (say, ModuleA can call ModuleB:MethodB - in this case virtual machine tries to load ModuleB, execute MethodB and return the result into ModuleA (or error/exception).Think of this mechanism as of highly upgraded "man 3 exec"). * Modules can be dynamically loaded/unloaded/replaced by new ones by demand (even from/to another host via network). Feel free to ask me for other details. >From my PoV (IANAL), erlang library/program with sources, released under different licences, should be marked in spec-file as "License: LicenseA and LicenseB and LicenseC" -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. From tibbs at math.uh.edu Sun Nov 8 02:20:11 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:20:11 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Does the AGPL impose packaging requirements? Message-ID: Does Fedora as a distro need to package AGPL (v3, if it matters) software in any specific way to meet the requirements of the license? Or do we simply provide a package (and src.rpm) and leave it up to the person installing the software to make sure they comply? - J< From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Nov 9 01:31:05 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:31:05 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] RE: [SPAM] Fedora-legal-list Digest, Vol 29, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <20091106133239.75617078d840fa9b604fb76173ae1e2a.f1edacb4e2.wbe@email.secureserver.net> References: <20091106133239.75617078d840fa9b604fb76173ae1e2a.f1edacb4e2.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <4AF770D9.1080402@redhat.com> On 11/07/2009 06:32 AM, three at threethirty.us wrote: > Wouldn't the term "Some Rights Reserved" work in its place? It still > looks official (which is why I assume it is there), and I know the > Creative Commons Project loves that wording. Sure, but it would be better to drop it altogether. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Nov 9 01:32:10 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:32:10 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Does the AGPL impose packaging requirements? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AF7711A.7020800@redhat.com> On 11/08/2009 12:20 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Does Fedora as a distro need to package AGPL (v3, if it matters) > software in any specific way to meet the requirements of the license? > Or do we simply provide a package (and src.rpm) and leave it up to the > person installing the software to make sure they comply? We leave it up to the user who deploys the software to make sure they are in compliance. ~spot From juliusdavies at gmail.com Wed Nov 11 08:40:38 2009 From: juliusdavies at gmail.com (Julius Davies) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:40:38 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] eclipse and php require GPLV2+ Message-ID: <598ad5b50911110040t590c8c47pea238639aaaa6b42@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I was looking at the some of the dependencies generated by AutoReqProv in the RPMS in Fedora 11 and I noticed the following: eclipse-swt (epl) requires: libxpcom.so provided-by: nspluginwrapper (gplv2+) php-cli (php) requires: libreadline.so provided-by: readline (gplv2+) How is this possible?? I don't think EPL or PHP licenses are allowed to dynamically link to GPLV2+ libraries. I see that neither of these dependency problems exist in RHEL 5.4 (eclipse-swt is known as libswt3-gtk2 in RHEL 5.4). ps. I'm a B.Sc. student doing a research project on licensing problems in open source linux distros, so I'm excited to see if my techniques have actually found some real life licensing problems. -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) 250-893-4579 (Mobile) http://juliusdavies.ca/logging.html From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Nov 11 08:56:09 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:56:09 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] eclipse and php require GPLV2+ In-Reply-To: <598ad5b50911110040t590c8c47pea238639aaaa6b42@mail.gmail.com> References: <598ad5b50911110040t590c8c47pea238639aaaa6b42@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AFA7C29.7010105@redhat.com> On 11/11/2009 06:40 PM, Julius Davies wrote: > Hi, > > > I was looking at the some of the dependencies generated by AutoReqProv > in the RPMS in Fedora 11 and I noticed the following: > > > eclipse-swt (epl) > requires: libxpcom.so > provided-by: nspluginwrapper (gplv2+) This is actually linked to xulrunner, which is "MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+". > php-cli (php) > requires: libreadline.so > provided-by: readline (gplv2+) This looks to be a genuine issue. I'm looking into it. (Readline is now GPLv3+, but I'm not sure it makes a difference.) ~spot From juliusdavies at gmail.com Wed Nov 11 09:03:43 2009 From: juliusdavies at gmail.com (Julius Davies) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:03:43 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] eclipse and php require GPLV2+ In-Reply-To: <4AFA7C29.7010105@redhat.com> References: <598ad5b50911110040t590c8c47pea238639aaaa6b42@mail.gmail.com> <4AFA7C29.7010105@redhat.com> Message-ID: <598ad5b50911110103xe1bd6edp9952f731f770dce8@mail.gmail.com> Thanks, Spot, >> >> I was looking at the some of the dependencies generated by AutoReqProv >> in the RPMS in Fedora 11 and I noticed the following: >> >> >> eclipse-swt (epl) >> requires: libxpcom.so >> provided-by: nspluginwrapper (gplv2+) > > This is actually linked to xulrunner, which is "MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ or > LGPLv2+". > Thanks so much for this clarification! I see now where I made a mistake. Oops. >> php-cli (php) >> requires: libreadline.so >> provided-by: readline (gplv2+) > > This looks to be a genuine issue. I'm looking into it. (Readline is now > GPLv3+, but I'm not sure it makes a difference.) > > ~spot > -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) 250-893-4579 (Mobile) http://juliusdavies.ca/logging.html From giallu at gmail.com Thu Nov 12 10:57:12 2009 From: giallu at gmail.com (Gianluca Sforna) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:57:12 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ChemDoodle Web Components license Message-ID: Hi, I'm having a look at packaging ChemDoodle Web Components, a Javascript set of classes to manage chemical structures in web pages. Now, the license is GPLv3+ but they have an additional exception detailed in: http://web.chemdoodle.com/installation.php#license """ As a special exception to the GPL, any HTML file which merely makes function calls to this code, and for that purpose includes it by reference, shall be deemed a separate work for copyright law purposes. If you modify this code, you may extend this exception to your version of the code, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. This means that your websites do NOT need to be released under GPL even if you call the ChemDoodle Web Components library. """ Now the questions: 1. Isn't that exception just redundant? I can't really see how an HTML could ever be considered a derivative work of some javascript code 2. in case it is really relevant, what should be put in the License filed of the spec file? TIA G. -- Gianluca Sforna http://morefedora.blogspot.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/gianlucasforna From steve.traylen at cern.ch Fri Nov 13 23:06:10 2009 From: steve.traylen at cern.ch (Steve Traylen) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:06:10 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] license for plpa Message-ID: Hi, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530230 has been blocked on FE-Legal for sometime. It looks "fine" bsd'ish but has a lot of extra text. In fact as mentioned in the review this code is already in Fedora as a private library elsewhere but that can be followed up after a yes or no on plpa in its own right, Thanks Steve -- Steve Traylen From r.landmann at redhat.com Mon Nov 16 04:04:33 2009 From: r.landmann at redhat.com (Ruediger Landmann) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:04:33 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Photographs of hardware in Fedora documentation Message-ID: <4B00CF51.7050308@redhat.com> The new Fedora Wireless Guide includes photographs of different types of wireless adapter: http://sradvan.fedorapeople.org/Wireless_Guide/en-US/html-single/#sect-Wireless_Guide-Hardware-Types_Of_Cards In each case, the manufacturer's logos and/or (obviously) the design of the hardware itself is visible in the photograph. Some questions: 1. Are the manufacturer's labels on the hardware and/or the design of the hardware itself (particularly the styling of the USB adapter in the first picture) likely to be protected by copyright? If so: * Is our use of the image to illustrate a generic component of a particular type likely to be covered by "fair use" for publication in the United States? * Is this protection likely to cause problems for people who want to reuse our content? (I'm thinking in particular of places that have no "fair use" or equivalent concept in their copyright law, or for reusers who want to use the image in a completely different context) -- and if so, do we care, or are reusers on their own here? 2. Could using specific pieces of hardware to illustrate a generic type of hardware be construed to be an endorsement of this particular piece of hardware or its manufacturer? If so, do we want to do this in our docs? Cheers Ruediger From chitlesh.goorah at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 09:04:42 2009 From: chitlesh.goorah at gmail.com (Chitlesh GOORAH) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:04:42 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] SystemC OSCI License and Fedora is an Non-Profit org Message-ID: <50baabb30911160104g6ade5b57i9c2b18f44b4e05dc@mail.gmail.com> Hello there, I bring this SystemC's legal discussion alive again as I believe it would be a very big asset for FEL. SystemC was refused to under fedora collection due to a licensing issue. Tom Callaway went to talk with OSCI's lawyer with some recommendations, but in vain. I'm in discussions with the OSCI board as well to seek a tradeoff. However OSCI board tells me it is on the trademark item that Tom and OSCI board failed to find a tradeoff. But isn't Fedora logos and trademarks suffers the same issue ? Perhaps also Firefox/Mozilla. I'm reading Tom Callaway's recommendations on the change needed in the licence. I think Fedora is NOT a Commercial Distributor and is NOT dealing a commercial offering. So as a non-profit organization we/fedora don't require the need for a chance in license, right ? Kind regards, Chitlesh Goorah Tom Callaway's recommendations: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is specifically commenting on the current version 3.0 of the SystemC license. http://www.systemc.org/about/org_docs/license/ The most significant problem is section 2.7, concerning trademarks. I would suggest both of the following: (a) Eliminating 2.7 in its entirety. Trademark issues are dealt with adequately in section 2.5. However, another (redundant) possibility is to replace the existing 2.7 in its entirety with one sentence: This Agreement grants no permission to use the marks or logos of OSCI. (b) Sever Exhibit D completely from the license. There are other issues that might not rise to the level of non-free-ness but have been pointed out by the FSF as being problematic (and in some cases clarification of meaning or purpose would lead to the conclusion that the clauses in question make the license non-free). The following suggestions would address these: (a) Eliminate the following: PLEASE READ THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE CLICKING ON THE "ACCEPT" BUTTON, AS BY CLICKING ON THE "ACCEPT" BUTTON YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ, UNDERSTOOD AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT AND ALL OF ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. (Note that there's other language that deals with acceptance below this language.) (b) In section 2.6, replace the term "proprietary notices" with "legal notices". (c) Replace section 5 with the following: Any Recipient which Distributes any Contribution and/or OSCI Release in a commercial offering (a "Commercial Distributor") may accept certain responsibilities with respect to end users, business partners and the like. While this license is intended to facilitate the commercial use of Contributions and OSCI Releases, a Commercial Distributor should do so in a manner which does not create potential liability for the Contributors. Therefore, each Commercial Distributor hereby agrees to defend and indemnify every Contributor ("Indemnified Contributor") against any losses, damages and costs (collectively "Losses") arising from claims, lawsuits and other legal actions brought by a third party against the Indemnified Contributor to the extent they directly result from the acts or omissions of such Commercial Distributor in connection with the terms and conditions under which the Commercial Distributor offered such Contributions and OSCI releases in a commercial product offering. The obligations in this Section 5 do not apply to any claims or Losses relating to any actual or alleged intellectual property infringement. In order to qualify, an Indemnified Contributor must: a) promptly notify the Commercial Distributor in writing of such claim, and b) allow the Commercial Distributor to control, and cooperate with the Commercial Distributor in, the defense and any related settlement negotiations. The Indemnified Contributor may participate in the defense of any such claim at its own expense. For example, a Recipient might include a Contribution in a commercial product offering, Product X. That Contributor is then a Commercial Distributor. If that Commercial Distributor then makes performance claims, or offers warranties, support or indemnity related to Product X, those performance claims, offers and other terms are such Commercial Distributor's responsibility alone. Under this Section 5, the Commercial Distributor would have to defend claims against the Contributors directly arising out of those performance claims, offers, and other terms, and if a court requires any Contributor to pay any damages as a result, the Commercial Distributor must pay those damages. Alternatively, and preferably, eliminate section 5 altogether. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kind regards, Chitlesh From jwboyer at gmail.com Mon Nov 16 12:55:15 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:55:15 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] SystemC OSCI License and Fedora is an Non-Profit org In-Reply-To: <50baabb30911160104g6ade5b57i9c2b18f44b4e05dc@mail.gmail.com> References: <50baabb30911160104g6ade5b57i9c2b18f44b4e05dc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091116125515.GB19843@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:04:42AM +0100, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote: >I'm reading Tom Callaway's recommendations on the change needed in the >licence. I think Fedora is NOT a Commercial Distributor and is NOT >dealing a commercial offering. So as a non-profit organization >we/fedora don't require the need for a chance in license, right ? However, others may use Fedora in commercial offerings. We don't restrict that use case at all, as it would be non-free of us to do so. Which means that we cannot have software in the repositories that has commercial entity restrictions. Also, Fedora is not a 'not-profit organization'. There are very specific legalities that need to be completed before you can declare yourself as that. josh From rfontana at redhat.com Mon Nov 16 13:23:56 2009 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:23:56 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] SystemC OSCI License and Fedora is an Non-Profit org In-Reply-To: <50baabb30911160104g6ade5b57i9c2b18f44b4e05dc@mail.gmail.com> References: <50baabb30911160104g6ade5b57i9c2b18f44b4e05dc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091116082356.476f5cb1@calliope> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:04:42 +0100 Chitlesh GOORAH wrote: > Hello there, > > I bring this SystemC's legal discussion alive again as I believe it > would be a very big asset for FEL. > > SystemC was refused to under fedora collection due to a licensing > issue. Tom Callaway went to talk with OSCI's lawyer with some > recommendations, but in vain. I'm in discussions with the OSCI board > as well to seek a tradeoff. However OSCI board tells me it is on the > trademark item that Tom and OSCI board failed to find a tradeoff. > > But isn't Fedora logos and trademarks suffers the same issue ? Perhaps > also Firefox/Mozilla. No; as I recall, there were problems noted with specific features of the SystemC license trademark provision, which have no counterpart in Fedora or Mozilla trademark policy. - RF From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Nov 16 17:26:25 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:26:25 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ChemDoodle Web Components license In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B018B41.4040307@redhat.com> On 11/12/2009 05:57 AM, Gianluca Sforna wrote: > Hi, > I'm having a look at packaging ChemDoodle Web Components, a Javascript > set of classes to manage chemical structures in web pages. > Now, the license is GPLv3+ but they have an additional exception detailed in: > http://web.chemdoodle.com/installation.php#license > > """ > As a special exception to the GPL, any HTML file which merely makes > function calls to this code, and for that purpose includes it by > reference, shall be deemed a separate work for copyright law purposes. > If you modify this code, you may extend this exception to your version > of the code, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to > do so, delete this exception statement from your version. > > This means that your websites do NOT need to be released under GPL > even if you call the ChemDoodle Web Components library. > """ > > Now the questions: > 1. Isn't that exception just redundant? I can't really see how an HTML > could ever be considered a derivative work of some javascript code Probably, but it isn't harmful. > 2. in case it is really relevant, what should be put in the License > filed of the spec file? # Exception to GPLv3: # As a special exception to the GPL, any HTML file which merely makes # function calls to this code, and for that purpose includes it by # reference, shall be deemed a separate work for copyright law purposes. # If you modify this code, you may extend this exception to your version # of the code, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to # do so, delete this exception statement from your version. License: GPLv3+ with exceptions ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Nov 16 17:27:09 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:27:09 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] license for plpa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B018B6D.6010700@redhat.com> On 11/13/2009 06:06 PM, Steve Traylen wrote: > Hi, > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530230 > has been blocked on FE-Legal for sometime. > > It looks "fine" bsd'ish but has a lot of extra text. > > In fact as mentioned in the review this code is already in Fedora > as a private library elsewhere but that can be followed up > after a yes or no on plpa in its own right, Apologies. I'm still catching up on a lot of things that were delayed for Fedora 12, including the FE-Legal queue. I'll try to get to this asap. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Nov 16 17:35:23 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:35:23 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Photographs of hardware in Fedora documentation In-Reply-To: <4B00CF51.7050308@redhat.com> References: <4B00CF51.7050308@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4B018D5B.9040000@redhat.com> On 11/15/2009 11:04 PM, Ruediger Landmann wrote: > The new Fedora Wireless Guide includes photographs of different types of > wireless adapter: > > http://sradvan.fedorapeople.org/Wireless_Guide/en-US/html-single/#sect-Wireless_Guide-Hardware-Types_Of_Cards > > > In each case, the manufacturer's logos and/or (obviously) the design of > the hardware itself is visible in the photograph. > > Some questions: > > 1. Are the manufacturer's labels on the hardware and/or the design of > the hardware itself (particularly the styling of the USB adapter in the > first picture) likely to be protected by copyright? Copyright? No. Trademark? Yes. > If so: > > * Is our use of the image to illustrate a generic component of a > particular type likely to be covered by "fair use" for publication in > the United States? I would think so. > * Is this protection likely to cause problems for people who want to > reuse our content? (I'm thinking in particular of places that have no > "fair use" or equivalent concept in their copyright law, or for reusers > who want to use the image in a completely different context) -- and if > so, do we care, or are reusers on their own here? It's possible that this could cause problems for people wishing to reuse our content where fair use is not an established legal concept (Europe comes to mind offhand). Specifically of concern is the logos, I am not aware of any situations where the design of the hardware itself is being trademarked. > 2. Could using specific pieces of hardware to illustrate a generic type > of hardware be construed to be an endorsement of this particular piece > of hardware or its manufacturer? If so, do we want to do this in our docs? It could be construed that way by some. I would advise that we do the following: 1. Add a disclaimer that any products pictured in the documentation are provided for reference only, and that no endorsement or guarantees of supportability are intended. 2. Edit the pictures so that any trademarked logos are either blurred out beyond recognition, or removed entirely. Be careful not to replace a trademarked logo with the Fedora logo, as that would be extremely problematic. Thanks, ~spot From chkr at fedoraproject.org Mon Nov 16 23:03:40 2009 From: chkr at fedoraproject.org (Christian Krause) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:03:40 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linking an LGPL library statically to an GPL program Message-ID: <4B01DA4C.8050608@fedoraproject.org> Hi, during a package review I've stumbled over the following problem: - a package ships the following in its tarball: a LGPLv2 library a GPLv2+ main application - the main application statically links the library and only the resulting binary is shipped in the final rpm If I interpret http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#GPL_Compatibility_Matrix correctly, the 2nd table should be consulted and so this mix is acceptable and the license mentioned in the spec file should be GPLv2+ (since the resulting binary would have this license). I'm a little bit unsure about: - Does the fact, that the library is statically linked, affects the compatibility or does the same rules apply as for dynamic linking? - Since the LGPL sources would be in the src.rpm, do we have to mention both licenses in the spec file? Thank you very much in advance! Best regards, Christian From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Nov 17 00:24:18 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:24:18 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linking an LGPL library statically to an GPL program In-Reply-To: <4B01DA4C.8050608@fedoraproject.org> References: <4B01DA4C.8050608@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4B01ED32.7090409@redhat.com> On 11/16/2009 06:03 PM, Christian Krause wrote: > I'm a little bit unsure about: > - Does the fact, that the library is statically linked, affects the > compatibility or does the same rules apply as for dynamic linking? For the purposes of Fedora's licensing, no, it doesn't really make a difference. > - Since the LGPL sources would be in the src.rpm, do we have to mention > both licenses in the spec file? You can, but you do not need to. We determine License based on the binaries: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License:_field Since the binary is a combination of the LGPLv2+ static library and the GPLv2+ application code, while technically, the resulting work is LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+, by honoring the terms of the GPLv2+, you are always honoring the terms of LGPLv2+, so it is not necessary to explicitly list it in the License tag. ~spot From oget.fedora at gmail.com Tue Nov 17 05:37:35 2009 From: oget.fedora at gmail.com (Orcan Ogetbil) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:37:35 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linking an LGPL library statically to an GPL program In-Reply-To: <4B01ED32.7090409@redhat.com> References: <4B01DA4C.8050608@fedoraproject.org> <4B01ED32.7090409@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 11/16/2009 06:03 PM, Christian Krause wrote: > >> I'm a little bit unsure about: >> - Does the fact, that the library is statically linked, affects the >> compatibility or does the same rules apply as for dynamic linking? > > For the purposes of Fedora's licensing, no, it doesn't really make a > difference. > >> - Since the LGPL sources would be in the src.rpm, do we have to mention >> both licenses in the spec file? > > You can, but you do not need to. We determine License based on the binaries: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License:_field > > Since the binary is a combination of the LGPLv2+ static library and the > GPLv2+ application code, while technically, the resulting work is > LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+, by honoring the terms of the GPLv2+, you are always > honoring the terms of LGPLv2+, so it is not necessary to explicitly list > it in the License tag. > Yes but you are missing one thing. The library is LGPLv2. It is not LGPLv2+. Doesn't it make the resultant binary GPLv2, without the + ? Orcan From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Nov 17 06:23:37 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:23:37 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linking an LGPL library statically to an GPL program In-Reply-To: References: <4B01DA4C.8050608@fedoraproject.org> <4B01ED32.7090409@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4B024169.6050106@redhat.com> On 11/17/2009 12:37 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > Yes but you are missing one thing. The library is LGPLv2. It is not LGPLv2+. > Doesn't it make the resultant binary GPLv2, without the + ? Well, the text of the LGPL says: "You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Do not make any other change in these notices." That basically means that LGPLv2* can be converted to GPLv2+. ~spot From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Tue Nov 17 10:58:23 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:58:23 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linking an LGPL library statically to an GPL program In-Reply-To: <4B024169.6050106@redhat.com> References: <4B01DA4C.8050608@fedoraproject.org> <4B01ED32.7090409@redhat.com> <4B024169.6050106@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4b0281cf.hDJAz8Qa/x8FsHqX%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > On 11/17/2009 12:37 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > > Yes but you are missing one thing. The library is LGPLv2. It is not LGPLv2+. > > Doesn't it make the resultant binary GPLv2, without the + ? > > Well, the text of the LGPL says: > > "You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public > License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do > this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that > they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, > instead of to this License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the > ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify > that version instead if you wish.) Do not make any other change in these > notices." Shortening the text does not help to understand the legal problem. The important next sentence is: ---> Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for that copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all subsequent copies and derivative works made from that copy. <--- For this reason, the license change typically is no option for an OS distributor. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Tue Nov 17 13:29:17 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:29:17 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linking an LGPL library statically to an GPL program In-Reply-To: References: <4B01DA4C.8050608@fedoraproject.org> <4B01ED32.7090409@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4b02a52d.TFsLOUOHoNqEFNWY%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > Yes but you are missing one thing. The library is LGPLv2. It is not LGPLv2+. > Doesn't it make the resultant binary GPLv2, without the + ? There is nothing in the GPL that requires you to put binaries under GPL. In fact, you can't even do this in many cases. You just need to follow the conditions in section 3 for the binary. If you ever like to convert LGPLv2 code to GPL, you of course cannot convert it to GPLv2+ but only to GPLv2. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From paul at city-fan.org Tue Nov 17 10:15:07 2009 From: paul at city-fan.org (Paul Howarth) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:15:07 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License tag to use for CC0 1.0 Universal? Message-ID: <4B0277AB.1010206@city-fan.org> Hi, Upstream of perl-Module-Signature has relicensed it from MIT to Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal. Since the "good licenses for software" list on the wiki doesn't explicitly mention CC0 I thought I'd ask here if it's OK to tag such as package as "Public Domain" or should there be a separate entry in the list for CC0? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ http://search.cpan.org/dist/Module-Signature/lib/Module/Signature.pm#CC0_1.0_Universal Please Cc: me on any replies as I'm not subscribed to fedora-legal-list. Cheers, Paul. From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Nov 17 18:50:34 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:50:34 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License tag to use for CC0 1.0 Universal? In-Reply-To: <4B0277AB.1010206@city-fan.org> References: <4B0277AB.1010206@city-fan.org> Message-ID: <4B02F07A.1090908@redhat.com> On 11/17/2009 05:15 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: > Hi, > > Upstream of perl-Module-Signature has relicensed it from MIT to Creative > Commons CC0 1.0 Universal. Since the "good licenses for software" list > on the wiki doesn't explicitly mention CC0 I thought I'd ask here if > it's OK to tag such as package as "Public Domain" or should there be a > separate entry in the list for CC0? > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses > > http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ > > http://search.cpan.org/dist/Module-Signature/lib/Module/Signature.pm#CC0_1.0_Universal > > > Please Cc: me on any replies as I'm not subscribed to fedora-legal-list. It probably merits a separate entry, because it is a rather thorough public domain declaration. Use: License: CC0 I've added it to the Good list for software and content (its good for anything, really, but it is most likely to be used in those areas). It is Free and GPL Compatible. ~spot From oget.fedora at gmail.com Tue Nov 17 18:56:31 2009 From: oget.fedora at gmail.com (Orcan Ogetbil) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:56:31 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linking an LGPL library statically to an GPL program In-Reply-To: <4b02a52d.TFsLOUOHoNqEFNWY%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4B01DA4C.8050608@fedoraproject.org> <4B01ED32.7090409@redhat.com> <4b02a52d.TFsLOUOHoNqEFNWY%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > >> Yes but you are missing one thing. The library is LGPLv2. It is not LGPLv2+. >> Doesn't it make the resultant binary GPLv2, without the + ? > > There is nothing in the GPL that requires you to put binaries under GPL. > In fact, you can't even do this in many cases. You just need to follow the > conditions in section 3 for the binary. > That assumes that the binaries are not considered "derived work", on which there is no general consensus. There are opinions in both ways. > If you ever like to convert LGPLv2 code to GPL, you of course cannot convert it > to GPLv2+ but only to GPLv2. > Now this contradicts spot's conclusion. Where is the catch? Orcan From tibbs at math.uh.edu Tue Nov 17 19:01:50 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:01:50 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License tag to use for CC0 1.0 Universal? In-Reply-To: <4B02F07A.1090908@redhat.com> (Tom Callaway's message of "Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:50:34 -0500") References: <4B0277AB.1010206@city-fan.org> <4B02F07A.1090908@redhat.com> Message-ID: >>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway writes: TC> It probably merits a separate entry, because it is a rather thorough TC> public domain declaration. Does this have any of the issues that public domain has with respect to people who live in countries where they cannot disclaim all of their rights? It looks like it doesn't with the "to the extent allowable by law" clause. If that's the case, should we recommend that folks use CC0 instead of simple public domain declarations when there have been issues with the latter? I know in the past folks have suggested "something like the WTFPL" for French citizens who wished to release code to the public domain but could not. - J< From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Tue Nov 17 19:46:51 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:46:51 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linking an LGPL library statically to an GPL program In-Reply-To: References: <4B01DA4C.8050608@fedoraproject.org> <4B01ED32.7090409@redhat.com> <4b02a52d.TFsLOUOHoNqEFNWY%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4b02fdab.DIOip89FUDzy1jVx%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > > > >> Yes but you are missing one thing. The library is LGPLv2. It is not LGPLv2+. > >> Doesn't it make the resultant binary GPLv2, without the + ? > > > > There is nothing in the GPL that requires you to put binaries under GPL. > > In fact, you can't even do this in many cases. You just need to follow the > > conditions in section 3 for the binary. > > > > That assumes that the binaries are not considered "derived work", on > which there is no general consensus. There are opinions in both ways. I would be interested in getting information about lawyers who claim that the binary compilation results may be a "derived work" and of course I would like to read their legal reviews on this topic in order to be able to compare claims. I did not yet get in contact with such people.... If you talk to various lawyers from vaious countries, you will see that there seems to be a consensus that in order to create a derived work, you need to add a suffifient amount of own creation which only happens if you modify sources. It is obvious that this does not happen with the automated process of compiling and linking. While I was trying to sue companies who abuse GPLd software in 2001 (long before Harald Welte did the same), my lawyer explained me that few of the claims of the GPL are enforcable in court and independend lawyers from different countries confirm that this does not only apply in Germany. The US lawyer who counsels the OpenSource Initiative explains that the combination of a work under GPL and another work that is a library is a "collective work" in contrast to a "derived work". See page 114 ff. in: http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf BTW: I asked Eben Moglen about this in 2001 and in 2008 and he confirmed that the automated process of compiling/linking does not create a "derived work". > > If you ever like to convert LGPLv2 code to GPL, you of course cannot convert it > > to GPLv2+ but only to GPLv2. > > > > Now this contradicts spot's conclusion. Where is the catch? It is obvious that your original conclusions are correct. Why should an author who forbids to use a later version of the LGPL (the license he originally selected for his work) give permission to use a later version of the alternate license (GPL)? BTW: I cannot speak for the legal situation in the USA.... But in Germany, the law forbids you to sign a contract that you don't know while you sign. If the last publish date from the Copyright holder was before the final version of the GPLv3 was finished, the phrase "GPLv2 or any later" is void and GPLv2 applies. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Nov 17 20:02:08 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:02:08 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License tag to use for CC0 1.0 Universal? In-Reply-To: References: <4B0277AB.1010206@city-fan.org> <4B02F07A.1090908@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4B030140.10108@redhat.com> On 11/17/2009 02:01 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway writes: > > TC> It probably merits a separate entry, because it is a rather thorough > TC> public domain declaration. > > Does this have any of the issues that public domain has with respect to > people who live in countries where they cannot disclaim all of their > rights? It looks like it doesn't with the "to the extent allowable by > law" clause. If that's the case, should we recommend that folks use CC0 > instead of simple public domain declarations when there have been issues > with the latter? I know in the past folks have suggested "something > like the WTFPL" for French citizens who wished to release code to the > public domain but could not. I'd still recommend that folks looking to to Public Domain declarations consider using a permissive license like MIT instead of abandoning their copyright entirely, but CC0 is significantly better than other public domain declarations. ~spot From juliusdavies at gmail.com Wed Nov 18 17:31:51 2009 From: juliusdavies at gmail.com (Julius Davies) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:31:51 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] eclipse and php require GPLV2+ In-Reply-To: <598ad5b50911110103xe1bd6edp9952f731f770dce8@mail.gmail.com> References: <598ad5b50911110040t590c8c47pea238639aaaa6b42@mail.gmail.com> <4AFA7C29.7010105@redhat.com> <598ad5b50911110103xe1bd6edp9952f731f770dce8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <598ad5b50911180931x4e472a7fk891b8e9d7be6b08a@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Fedora-Legal, Congratulations on FC12 ! Can't wait to try it out. Here's my question: How does the package system (e.g. apt/up2date/yum???) deal with dependencies that can be satisfied by more than 1 package? Or does this just not matter in real life? I put together a list of all pertinent "Provides" entries on the FC11 i386 DVD that can be satisfied in more than one way. The list is pretty small (25 entries) since I discarded things that never show up in "Requires". Any tips on how I should choose which package to depend on for what I'm doing (analyzing licensing between a package and its dependencies). Ambiguous maintainer "provides": ------------------------------------- dbus-bluez-pin-helper java java-sasl jaxp_parser_impl jaxp_transform_impl jce jre jsp jsse kdelibs kernel kernel-devel kernel-drm-nouveau libproxy-pac pcsc-ifd-handler pinentry-gui policykit-authentication-agent qt servlet syslog text-www-browser Ambiguous AutoReqProv "provides:" ------------------------------------- libbaconvideowidget.so.0 libjawt.so libjvm.so libxpcom.so Here's a specific example for "Provides: jaxp_transform_impl": saxon Java XSLT processor saxon-6.5.5-2.3.fc11.src.rpm http://saxon.sourceforge.net/ mplv1.0 xalan-j2 xalan-j2-2.7.0-8.5.fc11.src.rpm http://xalan.apache.org/ asl 1.1 and asl 2.0 and w3c yours, Julius >>> I was looking at the some of the dependencies generated by AutoReqProv >>> in the RPMS in Fedora 11 and I noticed the following: >>> >>> >>> eclipse-swt (epl) >>> requires: libxpcom.so >>> provided-by: nspluginwrapper (gplv2+) >> >> This is actually linked to xulrunner, which is "MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ or >> LGPLv2+". >> > > Thanks so much for this clarification! ?I see now where I made a mistake. ?Oops. > -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) 250-893-4579 (Mobile) http://juliusdavies.ca/logging.html From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Nov 18 18:35:43 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:35:43 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] eclipse and php require GPLV2+ In-Reply-To: <598ad5b50911180931x4e472a7fk891b8e9d7be6b08a@mail.gmail.com> References: <598ad5b50911110040t590c8c47pea238639aaaa6b42@mail.gmail.com> <4AFA7C29.7010105@redhat.com> <598ad5b50911110103xe1bd6edp9952f731f770dce8@mail.gmail.com> <598ad5b50911180931x4e472a7fk891b8e9d7be6b08a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B043E7F.5070404@redhat.com> On 11/18/2009 12:31 PM, Julius Davies wrote: > I put together a list of all pertinent "Provides" entries on the FC11 > i386 DVD that can be satisfied in more than one way. The list is > pretty small (25 entries) since I discarded things that never show up > in "Requires". Any tips on how I should choose which package to > depend on for what I'm doing (analyzing licensing between a package > and its dependencies). We really should clean these up. While it is possible to have multiple packages provide the same component, in practice, it should be treated as a conflict. For your testing, I would look at what packages were used in the buildroot when the dependent package was built. Btw, the php-cli/readline issue has been addressed in F11+ (F10 is EOL shortly, so I didn't bother there). It now links to libedit instead. Fedora 11: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-5.2.11-2.fc11 Fedora 12: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-5.3.0-7.fc12 ~spot From juliusdavies at gmail.com Wed Nov 18 19:13:38 2009 From: juliusdavies at gmail.com (Julius Davies) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:13:38 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] eclipse and php require GPLV2+ In-Reply-To: <4B043E7F.5070404@redhat.com> References: <598ad5b50911110040t590c8c47pea238639aaaa6b42@mail.gmail.com> <4AFA7C29.7010105@redhat.com> <598ad5b50911110103xe1bd6edp9952f731f770dce8@mail.gmail.com> <598ad5b50911180931x4e472a7fk891b8e9d7be6b08a@mail.gmail.com> <4B043E7F.5070404@redhat.com> Message-ID: <598ad5b50911181113j4b7af742h92da0d750b2dd5a6@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Spot, Thanks for the note! I don't yet know how to "look at what packages were used in the buildroot," but I'll try to figure that out. Meanwhile here's my best guess at resolving these: http://juliusdavies.ca/uvic/csc490-2009-fall-dmg/manual-deps.html yours, Julius On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 11/18/2009 12:31 PM, Julius Davies wrote: >> I put together a list of all pertinent "Provides" entries on the FC11 >> i386 DVD that can be satisfied in more than one way. ?The list is >> pretty small (25 entries) since I discarded things that never show up >> in "Requires". ?Any tips on how I should choose which package to >> depend on for what I'm doing (analyzing licensing between a package >> and its dependencies). > > We really should clean these up. While it is possible to have multiple > packages provide the same component, in practice, it should be treated > as a conflict. > > For your testing, I would look at what packages were used in the > buildroot when the dependent package was built. > > Btw, the php-cli/readline issue has been addressed in F11+ (F10 is EOL > shortly, so I didn't bother there). It now links to libedit instead. > > Fedora 11: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-5.2.11-2.fc11 > Fedora 12: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-5.3.0-7.fc12 > > ~spot > -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) 250-893-4579 (Mobile) http://juliusdavies.ca/logging.html From tibbs at math.uh.edu Wed Nov 18 19:29:18 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:29:18 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] eclipse and php require GPLV2+ In-Reply-To: <598ad5b50911181113j4b7af742h92da0d750b2dd5a6@mail.gmail.com> (Julius Davies's message of "Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:13:38 -0800") References: <598ad5b50911110040t590c8c47pea238639aaaa6b42@mail.gmail.com> <4AFA7C29.7010105@redhat.com> <598ad5b50911110103xe1bd6edp9952f731f770dce8@mail.gmail.com> <598ad5b50911180931x4e472a7fk891b8e9d7be6b08a@mail.gmail.com> <4B043E7F.5070404@redhat.com> <598ad5b50911181113j4b7af742h92da0d750b2dd5a6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >>>>> "JD" == Julius Davies writes: JD> Hi, Spot, Thanks for the note! I don't yet know how to "look at JD> what packages were used in the buildroot," but I'll try to figure JD> that out. At least the koji web interface can show you. If you start at a build, click on the Task, and then click on the buildArch descendent task, then on the Buildroot, and then on "Component RPMs". - J< From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Nov 26 06:57:17 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:27:17 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Serna GPL exception Message-ID: <4B0E26CD.2050007@fedoraproject.org> Hi Is this exception ok for Fedora? http://www.syntext.com/legal/SernaFree-GPL-EXCEPTION.txt Rahul From baransels at gmail.com Thu Nov 26 17:03:54 2009 From: baransels at gmail.com (B.S.) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:03:54 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Trademark License Agreement Message-ID: Greetings, I'm planning to open a website about fedora.I think I have to sign TLA to legalize this but I have no idea about how to do this... I tried to connect with legal at fedor* they didn't replied to me Can anybody give me some directions? Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david at gnsa.us Thu Nov 26 17:21:07 2009 From: david at gnsa.us (David Nalley) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:21:07 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Trademark License Agreement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:03 PM, B.S. wrote: > Greetings, > > I'm planning to open a website about fedora.I think I have to sign TLA to > legalize this but I have no idea about how to do this... > > I tried to connect with legal at fedor* they didn't replied to me > > Can anybody give me some directions? > > Thanks! > Per this page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Trademark_guidelines#Domain_names You should contact the Board, and I would mail the fedora-advisory-board mailing list. The fedora-legal list is generally, but not always, concerned with software licensing issues. Seems that this set of guidelines would come into play, and likely you would need a TLA. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Local_community_domains However, today (and in most cases) tomorrow is a public holiday in the US where a significant chunk of the Board resides. Cheers, David Nalley -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.10) iEYEARECAAYFAksOuVYACgkQkZOYj+cNI1ei7wCgnnk+PIsZ3kFqcxtqzt+sVlf3 +2UAoJAl+AHMSfG7anim+jSCuhlDWxVQ =TYlc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From juliusdavies at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 07:28:34 2009 From: juliusdavies at gmail.com (Julius Davies) Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:28:34 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FC12: rsync-3.0.6: GPLv2 and GPLv3 and GPLv3+ ? Message-ID: <598ad5b50911272328g5bb9a32ex5fe4f360ae183f7b@mail.gmail.com> rsync's RPM says it is gplv3+. But.... rsync-3.0.6/getgroups.c;GPLv3 rsync-3.0.6/testhelp/maketree.py;GPLv2 The rest of the source is mostly GPLv3+ with some ZLIB. The "maketree.py" file doesn't seem too important. I ran it for fun by just typing: python maketree.py And now I have 688MB of randomly named files and directories under /tmp/foo (420 directories, 8420 files). So I'm not really sure if the fact "maketree.py" is strictly GPLv2 matters at all. -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) 250-893-4579 (Mobile) http://juliusdavies.ca/logging.html From juliusdavies at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 08:18:02 2009 From: juliusdavies at gmail.com (Julius Davies) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:18:02 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FC12: wireshark: GPLv2 and GPLv3+ Message-ID: <598ad5b50911280018m8720269k43e5a4c86cffa88@mail.gmail.com> GPLv2,GPLv2+ wireshark-1.2.2/epan/dissectors/packet-dlm3.c GPLv3+ wireshark-1.2.2/tools/pidl/lib/Parse/Pidl/Samba4/Template.pm The strict GPLv2 in packet-dlm3.c is coming from this: /* * #defines are mostly copied from * *.[ch] files in linux/fs/dlm/ and linux/include/linux/dlm.h * * dlm_internal.h: * ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Copyright (C) Sistina Software, Inc. 1997-2003 All rights reserved. ** Copyright (C) 2004-2005 Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved. ** ** This copyrighted material is made available to anyone wishing to use, ** modify, copy, or redistribute it subject to the terms and conditions ** of the GNU General Public License v.2. * ----------------------------------------------------------------------- */ -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) 250-893-4579 (Mobile) http://juliusdavies.ca/logging.html From rakesh.pandit at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 08:40:07 2009 From: rakesh.pandit at gmail.com (Rakesh Pandit) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:10:07 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FC12: wireshark: GPLv2 and GPLv3+ In-Reply-To: <598ad5b50911280018m8720269k43e5a4c86cffa88@mail.gmail.com> References: <598ad5b50911280018m8720269k43e5a4c86cffa88@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2009/11/28 Julius Davies wrote: > GPLv2,GPLv2+ > wireshark-1.2.2/epan/dissectors/packet-dlm3.c > > > GPLv3+ > wireshark-1.2.2/tools/pidl/lib/Parse/Pidl/Samba4/Template.pm > > > > The strict GPLv2 in packet-dlm3.c is coming from this: > > > /* > ?* #defines are mostly copied from > ?* *.[ch] files in linux/fs/dlm/ and linux/include/linux/dlm.h > ?* > ?* dlm_internal.h: > ?* ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ?** ?Copyright (C) Sistina Software, Inc. ?1997-2003 ?All rights reserved. > ?** ?Copyright (C) 2004-2005 Red Hat, Inc. ?All rights reserved. > ?** > ?** ?This copyrighted material is made available to anyone wishing to use, > ?** ?modify, copy, or redistribute it subject to the terms and conditions > ?** ?of the GNU General Public License v.2. > ?* ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ?*/ > > [..] In case you are sure, you may file a bug also and notify maintainer about it, and expedite the process of fixing things quickly. In case you have some queries ping fedora-legal. Regards, -- Rakesh Pandit https://fedoraproject.org/ freedom, friends, features, first From rakesh.pandit at gmail.com Sat Nov 28 08:43:09 2009 From: rakesh.pandit at gmail.com (Rakesh Pandit) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:13:09 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FC12: wireshark: GPLv2 and GPLv3+ In-Reply-To: References: <598ad5b50911280018m8720269k43e5a4c86cffa88@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2009/11/28 Rakesh Pandit : > 2009/11/28 Julius Davies wrote: > [..] > > In case you are sure, you may file a bug also and notify maintainer > about it, and expedite the process of fixing things quickly. In case > you have some queries ping fedora-legal. > [..] yeah I need some sleep ;) -- Rakesh Pandit https://fedoraproject.org/ freedom, friends, features, first From luis at tieguy.org Sat Nov 28 18:14:07 2009 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:14:07 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FC12: rsync-3.0.6: GPLv2 and GPLv3 and GPLv3+ ? In-Reply-To: <598ad5b50911272328g5bb9a32ex5fe4f360ae183f7b@mail.gmail.com> References: <598ad5b50911272328g5bb9a32ex5fe4f360ae183f7b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440911281014p5f8269eemb31122e34d8b25e7@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Julius- Just curious- you seem to be doing a systematic scan of things here. May I ask what tool you're using? Thanks- Luis On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Julius Davies wrote: > rsync's RPM says it is gplv3+. > > But.... > > rsync-3.0.6/getgroups.c;GPLv3 > rsync-3.0.6/testhelp/maketree.py;GPLv2 > > The rest of the source is mostly GPLv3+ with some ZLIB. > > > The "maketree.py" file doesn't seem too important. ?I ran it for fun > by just typing: > > python maketree.py > > And now I have 688MB of randomly named files and directories under > /tmp/foo (420 directories, 8420 files). ?So I'm not really sure if the > fact "maketree.py" is strictly GPLv2 matters at all. > > > > > > > -- > yours, > > Julius Davies > 250-592-2284 (Home) > 250-893-4579 (Mobile) > http://juliusdavies.ca/logging.html > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-legal-list mailing list > Fedora-legal-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list > From juliusdavies at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 08:41:00 2009 From: juliusdavies at gmail.com (Julius Davies) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:41:00 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FC12: rsync-3.0.6: GPLv2 and GPLv3 and GPLv3+ ? In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440911281014p5f8269eemb31122e34d8b25e7@mail.gmail.com> References: <598ad5b50911272328g5bb9a32ex5fe4f360ae183f7b@mail.gmail.com> <2cb10c440911281014p5f8269eemb31122e34d8b25e7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <598ad5b50911290041o1c22dbdudbdd5e4467092620@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Luis, I'm primarily using the Ninka tool detailed in Dr. Daniel German's (currently unpublished) paper, "A sentence-matching method for automatic license identification of source code files." You can download the paper here: http://turingmachine.org/~dmg/papers/#sec-1.3 I'm also using Fossology's "fosslic" tool. yours, Julius On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Luis Villa wrote: > Hi, Julius- > Just curious- you seem to be doing a systematic scan of things here. > May I ask what tool you're using? > > Thanks- > Luis > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Julius Davies wrote: >> rsync's RPM says it is gplv3+. >> >> But.... >> >> rsync-3.0.6/getgroups.c;GPLv3 >> rsync-3.0.6/testhelp/maketree.py;GPLv2 >> >> The rest of the source is mostly GPLv3+ with some ZLIB. >> >> >> The "maketree.py" file doesn't seem too important. ?I ran it for fun >> by just typing: >> >> python maketree.py >> >> And now I have 688MB of randomly named files and directories under >> /tmp/foo (420 directories, 8420 files). ?So I'm not really sure if the >> fact "maketree.py" is strictly GPLv2 matters at all. >> -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) 250-893-4579 (Mobile) http://juliusdavies.ca/logging.html From luis at tieguy.org Sun Nov 29 18:32:17 2009 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:32:17 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FC12: rsync-3.0.6: GPLv2 and GPLv3 and GPLv3+ ? In-Reply-To: <598ad5b50911290041o1c22dbdudbdd5e4467092620@mail.gmail.com> References: <598ad5b50911272328g5bb9a32ex5fe4f360ae183f7b@mail.gmail.com> <2cb10c440911281014p5f8269eemb31122e34d8b25e7@mail.gmail.com> <598ad5b50911290041o1c22dbdudbdd5e4467092620@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440911291032x9ada2bcta1ace20b887aa24e@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Julius Davies wrote: > Hi, Luis, > > I'm primarily using the Ninka tool detailed in Dr. Daniel German's > (currently unpublished) paper, "A sentence-matching method for > automatic license identification of source code files." ?You can > download the paper here: > > http://turingmachine.org/~dmg/papers/#sec-1.3 > > > I'm also using Fossology's "fosslic" tool. Very interesting, thanks. Luis From ville.skytta at iki.fi Sun Nov 29 19:09:08 2009 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?iso-8859-1?q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:09:08 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FC12: rsync-3.0.6: GPLv2 and GPLv3 and GPLv3+? In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440911291032x9ada2bcta1ace20b887aa24e@mail.gmail.com> References: <598ad5b50911272328g5bb9a32ex5fe4f360ae183f7b@mail.gmail.com> <598ad5b50911290041o1c22dbdudbdd5e4467092620@mail.gmail.com> <2cb10c440911291032x9ada2bcta1ace20b887aa24e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200911292109.09234.ville.skytta@iki.fi> On Sunday 29 November 2009, Luis Villa wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Julius Davies wrote: > > Hi, Luis, > > > > I'm primarily using the Ninka tool detailed in Dr. Daniel German's > > (currently unpublished) paper, "A sentence-matching method for > > automatic license identification of source code files." You can > > download the paper here: > > > > http://turingmachine.org/~dmg/papers/#sec-1.3 > > > > > > I'm also using Fossology's "fosslic" tool. > > Very interesting, thanks. FWIW, there's also /usr/bin/licensecheck (from Debian) included in recent rpmdevtools packages. From rfontana at redhat.com Mon Nov 30 02:32:47 2009 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:32:47 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FC12: wireshark: GPLv2 and GPLv3+ In-Reply-To: <598ad5b50911280018m8720269k43e5a4c86cffa88@mail.gmail.com> References: <598ad5b50911280018m8720269k43e5a4c86cffa88@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091129213247.59dd5e69@calliope> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:18:02 -0800 Julius Davies wrote: > GPLv2,GPLv2+ > wireshark-1.2.2/epan/dissectors/packet-dlm3.c > > > GPLv3+ > wireshark-1.2.2/tools/pidl/lib/Parse/Pidl/Samba4/Template.pm > > > > The strict GPLv2 in packet-dlm3.c is coming from this: > > > /* > * #defines are mostly copied from > * *.[ch] files in linux/fs/dlm/ and linux/include/linux/dlm.h > * > * dlm_internal.h: > * > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ** Copyright (C) Sistina Software, Inc. 1997-2003 All rights > reserved. ** Copyright (C) 2004-2005 Red Hat, Inc. All rights > reserved. ** ** This copyrighted material is made available to > anyone wishing to use, ** modify, copy, or redistribute it subject > to the terms and conditions ** of the GNU General Public License v.2. > * > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > */ If your concern is that the "GPLv2-only" notice on dlm_internal.h is causing a GPLv2/GPLv3 license incompatibility here (I have no opinion on that issue) - to the extent that Red Hat holds copyright in that code (including Sistina copyrights acquired by Red Hat), it is available as "GPLv2 or later", despite what the notice says. Cheers, Richard -- Richard E. Fontana Open Source Licensing and Patent Counsel Red Hat, Inc. From juliusdavies at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 05:22:10 2009 From: juliusdavies at gmail.com (Julius Davies) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:22:10 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FC12: wireshark: GPLv2 and GPLv3+ In-Reply-To: <20091129213247.59dd5e69@calliope> References: <598ad5b50911280018m8720269k43e5a4c86cffa88@mail.gmail.com> <20091129213247.59dd5e69@calliope> Message-ID: <598ad5b50911292122q24a8800avf387ab570df2d19d@mail.gmail.com> Thanks, that was my concern! On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:18:02 -0800 > Julius Davies wrote: > >> GPLv2,GPLv2+ >> wireshark-1.2.2/epan/dissectors/packet-dlm3.c >> >> >> GPLv3+ >> wireshark-1.2.2/tools/pidl/lib/Parse/Pidl/Samba4/Template.pm >> >> >> >> The strict GPLv2 in packet-dlm3.c is coming from this: >> >> >> /* >> ?* #defines are mostly copied from >> ?* *.[ch] files in linux/fs/dlm/ and linux/include/linux/dlm.h >> ?* >> ?* dlm_internal.h: >> ?* >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ** ?Copyright (C) Sistina Software, Inc. ?1997-2003 ?All rights >> reserved. ** ?Copyright (C) 2004-2005 Red Hat, Inc. ?All rights >> reserved. ** ** ?This copyrighted material is made available to >> anyone wishing to use, ** ?modify, copy, or redistribute it subject >> to the terms and conditions ** ?of the GNU General Public License v.2. >> ?* >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> */ > > If your concern is that the "GPLv2-only" notice on dlm_internal.h is > causing a GPLv2/GPLv3 license incompatibility here (I have no opinion > on that issue) - to the extent that Red Hat holds copyright in that > code (including Sistina copyrights acquired by Red Hat), it is > available as "GPLv2 or later", despite what the notice says. > > Cheers, > Richard > > > -- > Richard E. Fontana > Open Source Licensing and Patent Counsel > Red Hat, Inc. > > -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) 250-893-4579 (Mobile) http://juliusdavies.ca/logging.html From oget.fedora at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 05:38:02 2009 From: oget.fedora at gmail.com (Orcan Ogetbil) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:38:02 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] eclipse and php require GPLV2+ In-Reply-To: <598ad5b50911110040t590c8c47pea238639aaaa6b42@mail.gmail.com> References: <598ad5b50911110040t590c8c47pea238639aaaa6b42@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Julius Davies wrote: > > ps. ?I'm a B.Sc. student doing a research project on licensing > problems in open source linux distros, so I'm excited to see if my > techniques have actually found some real life licensing problems. > Would you consider joining Fedora's gach project? https://fedorahosted.org/gach/ The project aims to do an automated review of new packages submitted to Fedora review. There is a large number of elements that need to be checked in anew package before it gets accepted, and the license check is one of them. If you can code in python, I am sure you can write a license check script for this project, and this will be very much appreciated. Orcan From taljurf at fedoraproject.org Mon Nov 30 20:06:47 2009 From: taljurf at fedoraproject.org (Tareq Al Jurf) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:06:47 +0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] New License Message-ID: <12d8a2fa0911301206n12329fb8ued3d64d4f6ef11dd@mail.gmail.com> Hi I'm trying to get certification for a new license which is newly written Can you point me where to start Thanks in advance -- Tareq Al Jurf Fedora Ambassador Riyadh, Saudi Arabia taljurf at fedoraproject.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Nov 30 20:09:45 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:39:45 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] New License In-Reply-To: <12d8a2fa0911301206n12329fb8ued3d64d4f6ef11dd@mail.gmail.com> References: <12d8a2fa0911301206n12329fb8ued3d64d4f6ef11dd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B142689.4080905@fedoraproject.org> On 12/01/2009 01:36 AM, Tareq Al Jurf wrote: > Hi > I'm trying to get certification for a new license which is newly written > Can you point me where to start > > Thanks in advance Show us the license. Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Nov 30 23:17:51 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:17:51 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Serna GPL exception In-Reply-To: <4B0E26CD.2050007@fedoraproject.org> References: <4B0E26CD.2050007@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4B14529F.3000802@redhat.com> On 11/26/2009 01:57 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > Is this exception ok for Fedora? > > http://www.syntext.com/legal/SernaFree-GPL-EXCEPTION.txt Yeah, just note it as GPLv* with exceptions. ~spot