From dakingun at gmail.com Mon Apr 7 02:56:33 2008 From: dakingun at gmail.com (Deji Akingunola) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 22:56:33 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License issue with mpich2 Message-ID: Hi, I've been trying to get mpich2 into Fedora for quite a long time now [1]. At this time all the technical issues blocking its inclusion seems to have been solved; however Jason Tibbitts did raise an issue with the licensing. mpich2 package doesn't contain any licensing text, but it ships with a copyright notice which include a 'GOVERNMENT LICENSE' and a 'DISCLAIMER' sections, and also simply stating 'Permission is hereby granted to use, reproduce, prepare derivative works, and to redistribute to others.' I've had the review ticket blocking FE-legal, but nothing is happening on that front yet. I hope FE-legal can look into this and make a decision, the upstream is really interested in having the package distributed as part of Fedora. Thank you. Deji [1]. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=171993 From stickster at gmail.com Mon Apr 7 18:00:10 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:00:10 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License issue with mpich2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1207591210.18157.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2008-04-06 at 22:56 -0400, Deji Akingunola wrote: > Hi, > > > I've been trying to get mpich2 into Fedora for quite a long time now > [1]. At this time all the technical issues blocking its inclusion > seems to have been solved; however Jason Tibbitts did raise an issue > with the licensing. mpich2 package doesn't contain any licensing text, > but it ships with a copyright notice which include a 'GOVERNMENT > LICENSE' and a 'DISCLAIMER' sections, and also simply stating > 'Permission is hereby granted to use, reproduce, prepare derivative > works, and > to redistribute to others.' > I've had the review ticket blocking FE-legal, but nothing is happening > on that front yet. I hope FE-legal can look into this and make a > decision, the upstream is really interested in having the package > distributed as part of Fedora. > Thank you. Typical IANAL-speak, but the US Government is usually required to have a license for itself, any other licensing notwithstanding, as a condition of acceptance of paid work. AFAIK, that license is additive, not restrictive. The license appears to be MIT-ish to me, but Spot can probably vet this more easily than I. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From stickster at gmail.com Tue Apr 8 11:16:39 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 07:16:39 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] EULA -> License Agreement Message-ID: <1207653399.12553.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Richard Fontana sent me an interesting note that I hadn't had time to follow up 'til now. It concerns whether Fedora should prefer the use of the term "License Agreement" over "EULA," the latter of which he felt sounded too much like a proprietary software-ism. And if you think about it, he's right -- what does "end user" mean when any user can potentially redistribute? There *IS* no theoretical end to a Fedora supply chain. I've cc'd him here in case he wants to comment further. I'd like to move/rename the wiki page at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/LicenseAgreement and similarly with the other pages. Fixing the link in firstboot would require fixing all the PO strings as well -- but because the content doesn't change, that's a trivial elbow grease exercise. I'll bring that to Mr. Lumens, along with an offer to make the changes, provided (1) people agree with the change, (2) Chris is in agreement, and (3) we get a rel-eng buy-in for this trivial change. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From rfontana at redhat.com Tue Apr 8 12:06:43 2008 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 08:06:43 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: EULA -> License Agreement In-Reply-To: <1207653399.12553.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207653399.12553.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20080408120643.GA2936@redhat.com> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 07:16:39AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > Richard Fontana sent me an interesting note that I hadn't had time to > follow up 'til now. It concerns whether Fedora should prefer the use of > the term "License Agreement" over "EULA," the latter of which he felt > sounded too much like a proprietary software-ism. And if you think > about it, he's right -- what does "end user" mean when any user can > potentially redistribute? There *IS* no theoretical end to a Fedora > supply chain. > > I've cc'd him here in case he wants to comment further. (disclaimer: IAARHL, TINLA) Thanks Paul. I had meant to raise this here but hadn't had a chance. The change is symbolic, a matter of labeling, so in one sense it doesn't matter, but I think for the reasons you give, it's better not to use "EULA".[1] [1]It's true that Red Hat uses a similar "EULA" for some of its products, and one could raise a similar issue regarding the use of the label in that context, even if the political considerations are not entirely the same. -- Richard E. Fontana Open Source Licensing and Patent Counsel Red Hat, Inc. (919) 754-4847 rfontana at redhat.com From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Apr 8 11:37:55 2008 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 07:37:55 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: EULA -> License Agreement In-Reply-To: <1207653399.12553.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207653399.12553.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1207654675.7589.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 07:16 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > (3) we get a rel-eng buy-in for this trivial > change. You have this. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? -------------- 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 Tue Apr 8 13:58:40 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 09:58:40 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] EULA -> License Agreement In-Reply-To: <1207653399.12553.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207653399.12553.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1207663120.3065.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 07:16 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > (1) people agree with the change I agree with the change. ;) ~spot From dakingun at gmail.com Tue Apr 8 18:22:38 2008 From: dakingun at gmail.com (Deji Akingunola) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:22:38 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License issue with mpich2 In-Reply-To: <1207591210.18157.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207591210.18157.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-04-06 at 22:56 -0400, Deji Akingunola wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > I've been trying to get mpich2 into Fedora for quite a long time now > > [1]. At this time all the technical issues blocking its inclusion > > seems to have been solved; however Jason Tibbitts did raise an issue > > with the licensing. mpich2 package doesn't contain any licensing text, > > but it ships with a copyright notice which include a 'GOVERNMENT > > LICENSE' and a 'DISCLAIMER' sections, and also simply stating > > 'Permission is hereby granted to use, reproduce, prepare derivative > > works, and > > to redistribute to others.' > > I've had the review ticket blocking FE-legal, but nothing is happening > > on that front yet. I hope FE-legal can look into this and make a > > decision, the upstream is really interested in having the package > > distributed as part of Fedora. > > Thank you. > > Typical IANAL-speak, but the US Government is usually required to have a > license for itself, any other licensing notwithstanding, as a condition > of acceptance of paid work. AFAIK, that license is additive, not > restrictive. The license appears to be MIT-ish to me, but Spot can > probably vet this more easily than I. > Thanks to Paul for his comment, and to Spot for acting on it; this issue have been resolved in bugzilla (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=171993). Deji > -- > Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ > gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 > http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ > irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug > From clumens at redhat.com Wed Apr 9 09:29:25 2008 From: clumens at redhat.com (clumens at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 05:29:25 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: EULA -> License Agreement In-Reply-To: <1207653399.12553.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207653399.12553.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20080409092925.GG2784@localhost.localdomain> > I'd like to move/rename the wiki page at > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA > to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/LicenseAgreement > and similarly with the other pages. > > Fixing the link in firstboot would require fixing all the PO strings as > well -- but because the content doesn't change, that's a trivial elbow > grease exercise. I'll bring that to Mr. Lumens, along with an offer to > make the changes, provided (1) people agree with the change, (2) Chris > is in agreement, and (3) we get a rel-eng buy-in for this trivial > change. This is really easy to change, so I've got no problem doing it. The only thing is we'll need translators to fix it up in a hurry or the license info dialog will be in English for everyone in the final release. - Chris From stickster at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 13:38:02 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:38:02 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Possible new CLA Message-ID: <1207748282.5428.124.camel@localhost.localdomain> There is a draft of a new CLA being circulated at FreeIPA: https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/2008-April/msg00052.html http://www.freeipa.org/wiki/images/2/2b/GenericCLA.pdf I've asked Legal for a summary of what's changed and why, and an answer to whether all Fedora contributors would need to re-execute this agreement. (I'm betting the answer to the last question is "yes," but that's just an educated guess.) I believe the changes to be minor, mainly to eliminate loopholes and to make this process less onerous in the future, but I'll wait for more information. Ricky Zhou tells me that our CLA signing information is kept in the form of a log table, not a simple date field. AIUI then, we have the ability to find out what CLAs have been executed over the life of an account. If I'm correct about that, I want to say first, thanks for a really good design. :-) Second, since a new CLA is a possibility -- I just want to confirm that we are not *overwriting* old CLA data, i.e. we would maintain a history that user "johndoe" signed a CLA on 2007-10-15 and then again on 2008-04-28. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From stickster at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 13:51:10 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:51:10 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [Freeipa-devel] [ALL] How to contribute to FreeIPA In-Reply-To: <1207747411.9925.216.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207620291.9925.144.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47FC32E1.1050706@gmail.com> <1207747411.9925.216.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1207749070.5428.140.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 09:23 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 08:37 +0530, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote: > > Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > > We have decided to expand on the popular Fedora model and, with the > > > community in mind, developed a generic Contributor License Agreement > > > (CLA): [link here]. The CLA grants to Red Hat, as the sponsor of the > > > project, a license on all code contributed to the project. This > > > permits Red Hat to license the code under a FOSS license of its > > > choice. The author of the code continues to hold the copyright in > > > that code, and is free to contribute the same code to other projects > > > and to license it under whatever terms the author desires. > > > > is this over and above the Fedora CLA (which is being looked into for > > simplification) ? > > As far as I understood it is basically the same CLA that Fedora uses. Actually, it's subtly different from our current CLA. Maybe this is intended to succeed our current one at some point, but since this introduction is the first I've seen of this new version, I'm not sure. I've asked Red Hat Legal to give us some clarification. I wonder if we should move this discussion to fedora-legal-list. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From stickster at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 14:19:55 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:19:55 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: EULA -> License Agreement In-Reply-To: <20080409092925.GG2784@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207653399.12553.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409092925.GG2784@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1207750795.5428.157.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 05:29 -0400, clumens at redhat.com wrote: > > I'd like to move/rename the wiki page at > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA > > to > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/LicenseAgreement > > and similarly with the other pages. > > > > Fixing the link in firstboot would require fixing all the PO strings as > > well -- but because the content doesn't change, that's a trivial elbow > > grease exercise. I'll bring that to Mr. Lumens, along with an offer to > > make the changes, provided (1) people agree with the change, (2) Chris > > is in agreement, and (3) we get a rel-eng buy-in for this trivial > > change. > > This is really easy to change, so I've got no problem doing it. The > only thing is we'll need translators to fix it up in a hurry or the > license info dialog will be in English for everyone in the final > release. Well, given that it's not a change in wording, just a link URL, the changes could be made across all the PO without disturbing the translations. In other words, it will make that entry "fuzzy" for all the translations, but anyone could go in and correct that entry in all the PO files. I'll even volunteer to do it, since this is something I've done once or twice for similar trivial changes in Docs. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mmcgrath at redhat.com Wed Apr 9 14:51:41 2008 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 09:51:41 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Possible new CLA In-Reply-To: <1207748282.5428.124.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207748282.5428.124.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote: > There is a draft of a new CLA being circulated at FreeIPA: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/2008-April/msg00052.html > http://www.freeipa.org/wiki/images/2/2b/GenericCLA.pdf > > I've asked Legal for a summary of what's changed and why, and an answer > to whether all Fedora contributors would need to re-execute this > agreement. (I'm betting the answer to the last question is "yes," but > that's just an educated guess.) I believe the changes to be minor, > mainly to eliminate loopholes and to make this process less onerous in > the future, but I'll wait for more information. > > Ricky Zhou tells me that our CLA signing information is kept in the form > of a log table, not a simple date field. AIUI then, we have the ability > to find out what CLAs have been executed over the life of an account. > > If I'm correct about that, I want to say first, thanks for a really good > design. :-) This is only true for FAS2, not FAS1 I think. > Second, since a new CLA is a possibility -- I just want to confirm that > we are not *overwriting* old CLA data, i.e. we would maintain a history > that user "johndoe" signed a CLA on 2007-10-15 and then again on > 2008-04-28. AFAIK the cla gets signed and a copy of it gets forwarded on to some legal address. We might want to contact the owner of that address (maybe spot? maybe greg?) and see if that mailbox is still full of cla signatures. -Mike From stickster at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 15:43:22 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:43:22 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Possible new CLA In-Reply-To: References: <1207748282.5428.124.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1207755802.5428.214.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 09:51 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > There is a draft of a new CLA being circulated at FreeIPA: > > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/2008-April/msg00052.html > > http://www.freeipa.org/wiki/images/2/2b/GenericCLA.pdf > > > > I've asked Legal for a summary of what's changed and why, and an answer > > to whether all Fedora contributors would need to re-execute this > > agreement. (I'm betting the answer to the last question is "yes," but > > that's just an educated guess.) I believe the changes to be minor, > > mainly to eliminate loopholes and to make this process less onerous in > > the future, but I'll wait for more information. > > > > Ricky Zhou tells me that our CLA signing information is kept in the form > > of a log table, not a simple date field. AIUI then, we have the ability > > to find out what CLAs have been executed over the life of an account. > > > > If I'm correct about that, I want to say first, thanks for a really good > > design. :-) > > This is only true for FAS2, not FAS1 I think. > > > Second, since a new CLA is a possibility -- I just want to confirm that > > we are not *overwriting* old CLA data, i.e. we would maintain a history > > that user "johndoe" signed a CLA on 2007-10-15 and then again on > > 2008-04-28. > > AFAIK the cla gets signed and a copy of it gets forwarded on to some legal > address. We might want to contact the owner of that address (maybe spot? > maybe greg?) and see if that mailbox is still full of cla signatures. I think it's spot. He'll see this and confirm or deny as needed. :-) -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Apr 9 15:58:11 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:58:11 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Possible new CLA In-Reply-To: <1207755802.5428.214.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207748282.5428.124.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1207755802.5428.214.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1207756691.3000.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 15:43 +0000, Paul W. Frields wrote: > I think it's spot. He'll see this and confirm or deny as needed. :-) CLAs come into my inbox. I hadn't been keeping them, just sanity checking them. ~spot From stickster at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 21:58:58 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:58:58 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Possible new CLA In-Reply-To: <1207756691.3000.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207748282.5428.124.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1207755802.5428.214.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1207756691.3000.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1207778338.5428.273.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 11:58 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 15:43 +0000, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > I think it's spot. He'll see this and confirm or deny as needed. :-) > > CLAs come into my inbox. I hadn't been keeping them, just sanity > checking them. If I understand what Ricky meant by "log table" correctly, we have a list of dates that we can tie to account names. If someone could confirm this who understands the bits involved, that would be great. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mmcgrath at redhat.com Wed Apr 9 22:11:09 2008 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 17:11:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Possible new CLA In-Reply-To: <1207778338.5428.273.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207748282.5428.124.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1207755802.5428.214.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1207756691.3000.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1207778338.5428.273.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 11:58 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 15:43 +0000, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > > > I think it's spot. He'll see this and confirm or deny as needed. :-) > > > > CLAs come into my inbox. I hadn't been keeping them, just sanity > > checking them. > > If I understand what Ricky meant by "log table" correctly, we have a > list of dates that we can tie to account names. If someone could > confirm this who understands the bits involved, that would be great. > I think we'd be covered. WE know when oldies like myself signed the CLA because it tracks when I joined cla_done. If I re-sign something I don't think I'll be joining cla_done and the new cla agreement should show up in the log table. -Mike From clumens at redhat.com Thu Apr 10 08:54:52 2008 From: clumens at redhat.com (clumens at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 04:54:52 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: EULA -> License Agreement In-Reply-To: <1207750795.5428.157.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207653399.12553.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409092925.GG2784@localhost.localdomain> <1207750795.5428.157.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20080410085452.GH2784@localhost.localdomain> > > > I'd like to move/rename the wiki page at > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA > > > to > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/LicenseAgreement > > > and similarly with the other pages. Done. We'd better change the page location before rebuilding firstboot or we're bound to hear complaints about us asking people to read things that aren't there. - Chris From stickster at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 13:41:51 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:41:51 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: EULA -> License Agreement In-Reply-To: <20080410085452.GH2784@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207653399.12553.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409092925.GG2784@localhost.localdomain> <1207750795.5428.157.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080410085452.GH2784@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1207834911.9641.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 04:54 -0400, clumens at redhat.com wrote: > > > > I'd like to move/rename the wiki page at > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA > > > > to > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/LicenseAgreement > > > > and similarly with the other pages. > > Done. We'd better change the page location before rebuilding firstboot > or we're bound to hear complaints about us asking people to read things > that aren't there. I've updated all the wiki pages as needed. Did you want me to send you a patch for firstboot, or did you want to handle that part? -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From clumens at redhat.com Thu Apr 10 14:21:33 2008 From: clumens at redhat.com (clumens at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:21:33 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: EULA -> License Agreement In-Reply-To: <1207834911.9641.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207653399.12553.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409092925.GG2784@localhost.localdomain> <1207750795.5428.157.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080410085452.GH2784@localhost.localdomain> <1207834911.9641.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20080410142133.GI2784@localhost.localdomain> > I've updated all the wiki pages as needed. Did you want me to send you > a patch for firstboot, or did you want to handle that part? I've updated the module itself and rebuilt the .po files. If you want to send me a patch for all the .po files that does the boring stuff, I'll gladly accept it. - Chris From stlwrt at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 15:43:20 2008 From: stlwrt at gmail.com (Pavel Shevchuk) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:43:20 +0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] What license it is? Message-ID: I want to submit spec for eet, but don't know what license it is. Developers call it old-style BSD, but for me it looks closer to MIT feh variant. Also, it's very close to license used for e16 components which is named "MIT with advertising" on fedora licensing page. What to write in "License" field of spec? Thanks in advance http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#feh COPYING file from source tarball: Copyright (C) 2000 Carsten Haitzler and various contributors (see AUTHORS) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies of the Software and its Copyright notices. In addition publicly documented acknowledgment must be given that this software has been used if no source code of this software is made available publicly. This includes acknowledgments in either Copyright notices, Manuals, Publicity and Marketing documents or any documentation provided with any product containing this software. This License does not apply to any software that links to the libraries provided by this software (statically or dynamically), but only to the software provided. Please see the COPYING.PLAIN for a plain-english explanation of this notice and it's intent. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. -- http://scwlab.com From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Apr 10 17:39:40 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:39:40 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] What license it is? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1207849180.5052.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 18:43 +0300, Pavel Shevchuk wrote: > I want to submit spec for eet, but don't know what license it is. > Developers call it old-style BSD, but for me it looks closer to MIT > feh variant. Also, it's very close to license used for e16 components > which is named "MIT with advertising" on fedora licensing page. What > to write in "License" field of spec? Ah yes. Another license from Enlightenment. I wish they would make an attempt to be consistent (or at least, not invent new licenses every ten minutes). This one is the "enna" variant of MIT (named after the first time I saw it). Use: License: MIT ~spot From berrange at redhat.com Wed Apr 16 20:01:23 2008 From: berrange at redhat.com (Daniel P. Berrange) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:01:23 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Question about Xen figlet artistic license & Fedora rules Message-ID: <20080416200122.GJ1444@redhat.com> I've just noticed that the Xen source tre includes a copy of the figlet source code. This appears to be licensed under the original non-clarified artisitic 1.0 license which is on the forbidden list. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-d8cc605dd386091c8b6be97b8a43fb6a5d624ae1 The differences between the original & clarified licenses are rather subtle though, so I'd like someone to confirm. I'm attaching the LICENSE file that Xen includes in its source tree at xen/tools/figlet/LICENSE If this is indeed the forbidden version I'll push this upstream to get Xen to remove figlet. Dan. -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, Boston -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -------------- next part -------------- http://www.sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/LICENSES/artistic.license The "Artistic License" Preamble The intent of this document is to state the conditions under which a Package may be copied, such that the Copyright Holder maintains some semblance of artistic control over the development of the package, while giving the users of the package the right to use and distribute the Package in a more-or-less customary fashion, plus the right to make reasonable modifications. Definitions: "Package" refers to the collection of files distributed by the Copyright Holder, and derivatives of that collection of files created through textual modification. "Standard Version" refers to such a Package if it has not been modified, or has been modified in accordance with the wishes of the Copyright Holder. "Copyright Holder" is whoever is named in the copyright or copyrights for the package. "You" is you, if you're thinking about copying or distributing this Package. "Reasonable copying fee" is whatever you can justify on the basis of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, and so on. (You will not be required to justify it to the Copyright Holder, but only to the computing community at large as a market that must bear the fee.) "Freely Available" means that no fee is charged for the item itself, though there may be fees involved in handling the item. It also means that recipients of the item may redistribute it under the same conditions they received it. 1. You may make and give away verbatim copies of the source form of the Standard Version of this Package without restriction, provided that you duplicate all of the original copyright notices and associated disclaimers. 2. You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other modifications derived from the Public Domain or from the Copyright Holder. A Package modified in such a way shall still be considered the Standard Version. 3. You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way, provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and when you changed that file, and provided that you do at least ONE of the following: a) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to Usenet or an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a major archive site such as ftp.uu.net, or by allowing the Copyright Holder to include your modifications in the Standard Version of the Package. b) use the modified Package only within your corporation or organization. c) rename any non-standard executables so the names do not conflict with standard executables, which must also be provided, and provide a separate manual page for each non-standard executable that clearly documents how it differs from the Standard Version. d) make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder. 4. You may distribute the programs of this Package in object code or executable form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following: a) distribute a Standard Version of the executables and library files, together with instructions (in the manual page or equivalent) on where to get the Standard Version. b) accompany the distribution with the machine-readable source of the Package with your modifications. c) accompany any non-standard executables with their corresponding Standard Version executables, giving the non-standard executables non-standard names, and clearly documenting the differences in manual pages (or equivalent), together with instructions on where to get the Standard Version. d) make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder. 5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this Package. You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However, you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your own. 6. The scripts and library files supplied as input to or produced as output from the programs of this Package do not automatically fall under the copyright of this Package, but belong to whomever generated them, and may be sold commercially, and may be aggregated with this Package. 7. C or perl subroutines supplied by you and linked into this Package shall not be considered part of this Package. 8. The name of the Copyright Holder may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. 9. THIS PACKAGE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The End From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Apr 16 20:57:43 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:57:43 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Question about Xen figlet artistic license & Fedora rules In-Reply-To: <20080416200122.GJ1444@redhat.com> References: <20080416200122.GJ1444@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1208379463.3030.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 21:01 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > If this is indeed the forbidden version I'll push this upstream to get Xen > to remove figlet. This is indeed the original Artistic 1.0 license. You might try to get the figlet copyright holder(s) to either dual license with something else, or relicense to something else (perhaps Artistic 2.0). ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Apr 22 18:09:16 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:39:16 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Clamav plugin and Claws Message-ID: <480E29CC.3060504@fedoraproject.org> Hi http://www.thewildbeast.co.uk/wordpress/2008/02/29/claws-mail-clamav-gplv2-gplv2-gplv3-and-the-clamav-plugin/ Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Apr 24 20:35:01 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:35:01 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: MeepZor Consulting Public Licence (MCPL) - good or bad? In-Reply-To: <47803291.1080701@redhat.com> References: <20080104231015.GA18956@hurricane.linuxnetz.de> <47802F36.7030004@redhat.com> <20080106014515.GA20730@hurricane.linuxnetz.de> <47803291.1080701@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1209069301.12717.297.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 20:44 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 01/05/2008 Robert Scheck wrote: > > looks like a normal free license to me. > > It looks that way to me, but the wording is unique in a few parts, and > I'm not sure it if is GPL compatible or not. > > If I had to guess, I would say Free and GPLv2/v3 Compatible, but I'd > rather let the FSF pass judgement. :) This one came back as non-free. I spoke to the author of the license, and he's moved the code that used it to Apache 2.0: http://sourceforge.net/projects/clarke ~spot From rtlm10 at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 21:34:35 2008 From: rtlm10 at gmail.com (Russell Harrison) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:34:35 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 (CPAL) Message-ID: <1ed4a0130804241434j7bb66327jae92d9d8668a3465@mail.gmail.com> The Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 is listed in the Unknown Licenses section of the Licensing page on the Fedora Project wiki. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-efb930193d6fc665a78c2774f715c6fe1f27ee34 I think the OpenProj project management application would make an excelent addition to the Fedora repos but I'm not sure its licence is compatable with the Fedora packaging policies. http://openproj.org/openproj http://projity.com/license/index.html Has this license been evaluated by the Fedora team, and if so what was the outcome of that evaluation? Thanks, Russell Harrison From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Apr 24 21:49:46 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:19:46 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 (CPAL) In-Reply-To: <1ed4a0130804241434j7bb66327jae92d9d8668a3465@mail.gmail.com> References: <1ed4a0130804241434j7bb66327jae92d9d8668a3465@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4811007A.6010101@fedoraproject.org> Russell Harrison wrote: > The Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 is listed in the > Unknown Licenses section of the Licensing page on the Fedora Project > wiki. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-efb930193d6fc665a78c2774f715c6fe1f27ee34 > > I think the OpenProj project management application would make an > excelent addition to the Fedora repos but I'm not sure its licence is > compatable with the Fedora packaging policies. > > http://openproj.org/openproj > http://projity.com/license/index.html > > Has this license been evaluated by the Fedora team, and if so what was > the outcome of that evaluation? IIRC, I asked about this license precisely for the same software and it is still being evaluated by FSF. So the status is unknown and documented as such. Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Apr 24 21:57:07 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:57:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 (CPAL) In-Reply-To: <4811007A.6010101@fedoraproject.org> References: <1ed4a0130804241434j7bb66327jae92d9d8668a3465@mail.gmail.com> <4811007A.6010101@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1209074227.12717.307.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 03:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > IIRC, I asked about this license precisely for the same software and > it > is still being evaluated by FSF. So the status is unknown and > documented > as such. I asked for a status update on this one. ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Apr 24 22:04:01 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:34:01 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 (CPAL) In-Reply-To: <1209074227.12717.307.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1ed4a0130804241434j7bb66327jae92d9d8668a3465@mail.gmail.com> <4811007A.6010101@fedoraproject.org> <1209074227.12717.307.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <481103D1.8040309@fedoraproject.org> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 03:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> IIRC, I asked about this license precisely for the same software and >> it >> is still being evaluated by FSF. So the status is unknown and >> documented >> as such. > > I asked for a status update on this one. Thanks. Would marking such licenses as "Waiting on FSF" or something more specific make it better than "Unknown" ? Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Apr 24 22:13:32 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:13:32 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 (CPAL) In-Reply-To: <481103D1.8040309@fedoraproject.org> References: <1ed4a0130804241434j7bb66327jae92d9d8668a3465@mail.gmail.com> <4811007A.6010101@fedoraproject.org> <1209074227.12717.307.camel@localhost.localdomain> <481103D1.8040309@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1209075212.12717.309.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 03:34 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 03:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> IIRC, I asked about this license precisely for the same software and > >> it > >> is still being evaluated by FSF. So the status is unknown and > >> documented > >> as such. > > > > I asked for a status update on this one. > > Thanks. Would marking such licenses as "Waiting on FSF" or something > more specific make it better than "Unknown" ? Well, they're not all waiting on FSF. Most of them are, but not all. ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Apr 24 22:22:37 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:52:37 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 (CPAL) In-Reply-To: <1209075212.12717.309.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1ed4a0130804241434j7bb66327jae92d9d8668a3465@mail.gmail.com> <4811007A.6010101@fedoraproject.org> <1209074227.12717.307.camel@localhost.localdomain> <481103D1.8040309@fedoraproject.org> <1209075212.12717.309.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4811082D.20703@fedoraproject.org> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 03:34 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >>> On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 03:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>>> IIRC, I asked about this license precisely for the same software and >>>> it >>>> is still being evaluated by FSF. So the status is unknown and >>>> documented >>>> as such. >>> I asked for a status update on this one. >> Thanks. Would marking such licenses as "Waiting on FSF" or something >> more specific make it better than "Unknown" ? > > Well, they're not all waiting on FSF. Most of them are, but not all. Precisely why I said "Waiting on FSF" or something more specific in more useful than "Unknown". If it is waiting on someone else like Red Hat Legal, mark it as such for more transparency. That would give people who are looking for updates on the licensing page more information which is always a good thing. Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Apr 25 11:30:48 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:30:48 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 (CPAL) In-Reply-To: <1209074227.12717.307.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1ed4a0130804241434j7bb66327jae92d9d8668a3465@mail.gmail.com> <4811007A.6010101@fedoraproject.org> <1209074227.12717.307.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1209123048.12717.328.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 17:57 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 03:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > IIRC, I asked about this license precisely for the same software and > > it > > is still being evaluated by FSF. So the status is unknown and > > documented > > as such. > > I asked for a status update on this one. This one is Free, but GPLv2/v3 incompatible. Use: License: CPAL ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Apr 25 11:32:51 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:32:51 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fair license, Naumen License Message-ID: <1209123171.12717.331.camel@localhost.localdomain> A few other licenses got looked at by the lawyers: The Fair License and the Naumen Public License are both Free and GPLv2/v3 Compatible. The tables have been updated accordingly at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing Thanks, ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Apr 29 22:33:15 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:03:15 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Yahoo Public License 1.0 Message-ID: <4817A22B.70704@fedoraproject.org> Hi http://www.zimbra.com/license/yahoo_public_license_1.0.html Is this license acceptable for Fedora? Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Apr 30 01:48:33 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:48:33 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Yahoo Public License 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4817A22B.70704@fedoraproject.org> References: <4817A22B.70704@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1209520113.20913.96.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 04:03 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > http://www.zimbra.com/license/yahoo_public_license_1.0.html > > Is this license acceptable for Fedora? No, because of: In the event Yahoo! determines that You have breached this Agreement, Yahoo! may terminate this Agreement. In effect, because they can terminate the license at will, the rights can't be depended on. Non-free, no-go for Fedora. ~spot From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Wed Apr 30 12:40:21 2008 From: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mamoru Tasaka) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:40:21 +0900 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Xerox license Message-ID: <481868B5.30706@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Hello. Now I am reviewing synopsis [1]. Some of the files in synopsis uses Xerox license as below: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 1995, 1996 Xerox Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Use and copying of this software and preparation of derivative works based upon this software are permitted. Any copy of this software or of any derivative work must include the above copyright notice of Xerox Corporation, this paragraph and the one after it. Any distribution of this software or derivative works must comply with all applicable United States export control laws. This software is made available AS IS, and XEROX CORPORATION DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION CONTAINED HEREIN, ANY LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE SOFTWARE OR ITS USE IS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED, WHETHER ARISING IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) OR STRICT LIABILITY, EVEN IF XEROX CORPORATION IS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This seems MIT-ish, however I wonder if the terms of "compliance with US laws" make this license GPL incompatible. For synopsis, if this is LGPLv2+ compatible it is okay. So would you tell me if - this is enough Free for Fedora - this is LGPL/GPL compatible If this is GPL incompatible, I would appreciate it if this license is named and added to Fedora legal wiki page. Regards, Mamoru [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438543 From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Apr 30 14:35:47 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:35:47 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Xerox license In-Reply-To: <481868B5.30706@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> References: <481868B5.30706@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Message-ID: <1209566147.20913.112.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 21:40 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > So would you tell me if > - this is enough Free for Fedora Yes, this license is Free. > - this is LGPL/GPL compatible It is GPL-Incompatible, but LGPL compatible (its rather difficult to be LGPL incompatible). > If this is GPL incompatible, I would appreciate it if this license is > named > and added to Fedora legal wiki page. It has been added as License: Xerox Thanks, ~spot