From itamar at ispbrasil.com.br Sat Nov 1 14:55:44 2008 From: itamar at ispbrasil.com.br (Itamar - IspBrasil) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:55:44 -0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] QuickFix License Message-ID: <490C6DF0.3060304@ispbrasil.com.br> this license is compatible with fedora ? http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/license.html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469273 ------------------- Itamar Reis Peixoto e-mail/msn: itamar at ispbrasil.com.br sip: itamar at ispbrasil.com.br skype: itamarjp icq: 81053601 +55 11 4063 5033 +55 34 3221 8599 From valent.turkovic at gmail.com Sun Nov 2 20:29:55 2008 From: valent.turkovic at gmail.com (Valent Turkovic) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 21:29:55 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Software is once again unpatentable in the United States Message-ID: <64b14b300811021229h5551a891i990eb3fccca2b9b5@mail.gmail.com> Quote from http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=368 : Here are the highlights: * The Federal Circuit rejected the that the "useful, concrete and tangible result" inquiry as being inadequate. * Patentability under 101 does not depend on process steps, but rather requires a tangible machine or transformation into a different state. * *Software* *is* *once* *again* *unpatentable* *in* *the* *United* *States* * In order to protect what was formerly known as patentable software we will have to go back to claiming a machine that provides certain functionality. * Software patents that have been issued under the previous understanding of the law are almost certainly now worthless. -- http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic From luis at tieguy.org Sun Nov 2 20:45:59 2008 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 15:45:59 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Software is once again unpatentable in the United States In-Reply-To: <64b14b300811021229h5551a891i990eb3fccca2b9b5@mail.gmail.com> References: <64b14b300811021229h5551a891i990eb3fccca2b9b5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440811021245x172834c9k602c38bbbed27882@mail.gmail.com> [This is not legal advice; I am not a lawyer (yet); if you're seeking understanding of the current state of software patents you should seek a lawyer with expertise in the field.] On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Valent Turkovic wrote: > Quote from http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=368 : > > Here are the highlights: > > * The Federal Circuit rejected the that the "useful, concrete and tangible > result" inquiry as being inadequate. > > * Patentability under 101 does not depend on process steps, but rather > requires a tangible machine or transformation into a different state. > > * *Software* *is* *once* *again* *unpatentable* *in* *the* *United* *States* > > * In order to protect what was formerly known as patentable software we > will have to go back to claiming a machine that provides certain > functionality. > > * Software patents that have been issued under the previous understanding > of the law are almost certainly now worthless. That is almost certainly an over-reading of the case. The case does say that a patent must involve a 'particular machine', but the case very explicitly does not define a 'particular machine', and no one knows what a particular machine really is. Plausible arguments can be made (and most certainly will be made) that general-purpose PCs are 'particular machines' for the purposes of patent law; the opposite argument has also been made, including by the Patent and Trade Office itself. Until that question is settled, it would be very premature to say that software patents in the US are on the outs. Luis From luis at tieguy.org Sun Nov 2 20:59:02 2008 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 15:59:02 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Software is once again unpatentable in the United States In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440811021245x172834c9k602c38bbbed27882@mail.gmail.com> References: <64b14b300811021229h5551a891i990eb3fccca2b9b5@mail.gmail.com> <2cb10c440811021245x172834c9k602c38bbbed27882@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440811021259w4c829550secff7fedc35cb488@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Luis Villa wrote: > [This is not legal advice; I am not a lawyer (yet); if you're seeking > understanding of the current state of software patents you should seek > a lawyer with expertise in the field.] Still true. One additional comment is below. > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Valent Turkovic > wrote: >> Quote from http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=368 : >> >> Here are the highlights: >> >> * The Federal Circuit rejected the that the "useful, concrete and tangible >> result" inquiry as being inadequate. >> >> * Patentability under 101 does not depend on process steps, but rather >> requires a tangible machine or transformation into a different state. >> >> * *Software* *is* *once* *again* *unpatentable* *in* *the* *United* *States* >> >> * In order to protect what was formerly known as patentable software we >> will have to go back to claiming a machine that provides certain >> functionality. >> >> * Software patents that have been issued under the previous understanding >> of the law are almost certainly now worthless. > > That is almost certainly an over-reading of the case. The case does > say that a patent must involve a 'particular machine', but the case > very explicitly does not define a 'particular machine', and no one > knows what a particular machine really is. > > Plausible arguments can be made (and most certainly will be made) that > general-purpose PCs are 'particular machines' for the purposes of > patent law; the opposite argument has also been made, including by the > Patent and Trade Office itself. Until that question is settled, it > would be very premature to say that software patents in the US are on > the outs. Or to put it another way: if someone sued you for a violation of a software patent tomorrow, Bilski would be a critical and central part of your defense, and you might win, but you'd still be in for a trial lasting years and costing millions of dollars. If you won, you'd be a hero to anyone who dislikes software patents, and your case would be cited for years to come as the real milestone case (not Bilski.) But you would also stand a significant chance of losing. You have a much better chance of winning than you did before Bilski, but still a big chance of losing. If this case were as definitive as the linked author makes it sound, and you were sued tomorrow, Bilski would be all of your defense and your case would quickly be thrown out. But that is simply not the case. Luis From luis at tieguy.org Sun Nov 2 21:13:22 2008 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 16:13:22 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Software is once again unpatentable in the United States In-Reply-To: <64b14b300811021229h5551a891i990eb3fccca2b9b5@mail.gmail.com> References: <64b14b300811021229h5551a891i990eb3fccca2b9b5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440811021313r28e16697m6b146861dd34367c@mail.gmail.com> [Apologies to those on legal-list who get this multiple times, but I wasn't sub'd to f-d-l.] [This is not legal advice; I am not a lawyer (yet); if you're seeking understanding of the current state of software patents you should seek a lawyer with expertise in the field.] On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Valent Turkovic wrote: > Quote from http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=368 : > > Here are the highlights: > > * The Federal Circuit rejected the that the "useful, concrete and tangible > result" inquiry as being inadequate. > > * Patentability under 101 does not depend on process steps, but rather > requires a tangible machine or transformation into a different state. > > * *Software* *is* *once* *again* *unpatentable* *in* *the* *United* *States* > > * In order to protect what was formerly known as patentable software we > will have to go back to claiming a machine that provides certain > functionality. > > * Software patents that have been issued under the previous understanding > of the law are almost certainly now worthless. That is almost certainly an over-reading of the case. The case (Bilski) does say that a patent must involve a 'particular machine', but the case very explicitly does not define a 'particular machine', and no one knows what a particular machine really is. Plausible arguments can be made (and most certainly will be made) that general-purpose PCs are 'particular machines' for the purposes of patent law; the opposite argument has also been made, including by the Patent and Trade Office itself. Until that question is settled, it would be very premature to say that software patents in the US are on the outs. Or to put it another way: if someone sued you for a violation of a software patent tomorrow, Bilski would be a critical and central part of your defense, and you might win, but you'd still be in for a trial lasting years and costing millions of dollars. If you won, you'd be a hero to anyone who dislikes software patents, and your case would be cited for years to come as the real milestone case (not Bilski.) But you would also stand a significant chance of losing. You have a much better chance of winning than you did before Bilski, but still a big chance of losing. If this case were as definitive as the linked author makes it sound, and you were sued tomorrow, Bilski would be all of your defense and your case would quickly be thrown out. But that is simply not the case. Luis From itamar at ispbrasil.com.br Sat Nov 1 14:51:43 2008 From: itamar at ispbrasil.com.br (Itamar - IspBrasil) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:51:43 -0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] quickfix license. Message-ID: <490C6CFF.40703@ispbrasil.com.br> this license is compatible with fedora ? http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/license.html -------------------- Itamar Reis Peixoto e-mail/msn: itamar at ispbrasil.com.br sip: itamar at ispbrasil.com.br skype: itamarjp icq: 81053601 +55 11 4063 5033 +55 34 3221 8599 From caolanm at redhat.com Sun Nov 2 15:06:33 2008 From: caolanm at redhat.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Caol=E1n?= McNamara) Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:06:33 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Is the EUPL v1.0 (European Union Public Licence) acceptable in Fedora Message-ID: <1225638393.13911.211.camel@vain.rhgalway> Here's one I hadn't be aware of before, the EUPL, European Union Public Licence: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl which affects something I was considering packaging. It does have in it an explicit ... Compatibility clause: If the Licensee Distributes ... derivative Works ... this Distribution ... can be done under the terms of this Compatible Licence. ?Compatible Licences? according to article 5 EUPL are: ? General Public License (GPL) v. 2 ? Open Software License (OSL) v. 2.1, v. 3.0 ? Common Public License v. 1.0 ? Eclipse Public License v. 1.0 ? Cecill v. 2.0 C. From lesmikesell at gmail.com Sun Nov 2 21:09:03 2008 From: lesmikesell at gmail.com (Les Mikesell) Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:09:03 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Software is once again unpatentable in the United States In-Reply-To: <64b14b300811021229h5551a891i990eb3fccca2b9b5@mail.gmail.com> References: <64b14b300811021229h5551a891i990eb3fccca2b9b5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <490E16EF.40709@gmail.com> Valent Turkovic wrote: > Quote from http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=368 : > > Here are the highlights: > > * The Federal Circuit rejected the that the "useful, concrete and tangible > result" inquiry as being inadequate. > > * Patentability under 101 does not depend on process steps, but rather > requires a tangible machine or transformation into a different state. > > * *Software* *is* *once* *again* *unpatentable* *in* *the* *United* *States* > > * In order to protect what was formerly known as patentable software we > will have to go back to claiming a machine that provides certain > functionality. > > * Software patents that have been issued under the previous understanding > of the law are almost certainly now worthless. This is a step in the right direction in terms of seeing most software as math operations instead of a model of hardware. But the Supreme Court is probably going to have to rule on it before the matter is settled - if the legislation isn't changed first to be more explicit. But the concept that I'd really like to see put forth is that if, as a consumer, you have one set of bits incorporating a patented algorithm you then have the right to use any other arrangement of bits to accomplish that same algorithm's effect, just as in the hardware case that this is supposed to model, you would be permitted to rearrange and alter the parts of your licensed device without having to purchase a new license to cover the same patent. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Nov 3 14:49:20 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:49:20 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] QuickFix License In-Reply-To: <490C6DF0.3060304@ispbrasil.com.br> References: <490C6DF0.3060304@ispbrasil.com.br> Message-ID: <1225723760.3159.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 12:55 -0200, Itamar - IspBrasil wrote: > this license is compatible with fedora ? > > http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/license.html > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469273 Free but GPL-Incompatible. Basically, this is a slightly modified PHP license. Use: License: QuickFix ~spot From itamar at ispbrasil.com.br Mon Nov 3 15:05:13 2008 From: itamar at ispbrasil.com.br (Itamar - IspBrasil) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:05:13 -0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] QuickFix License In-Reply-To: <1225723760.3159.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <490C6DF0.3060304@ispbrasil.com.br> <1225723760.3159.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <490F1329.5070905@ispbrasil.com.br> please look http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=20081103071943.996574bdd30485e55131bd2b2a76da64.bb74004a9c.wbe%40email.secureserver.net&forum_name=quickfix-users " It is released with a Apache/BSD style license, it is an OSI approved license. --oren" what I need to to, ask the quickfix people to make this clarified in quickfix files ? On 11/3/2008 12:49 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 12:55 -0200, Itamar - IspBrasil wrote: > >> this license is compatible with fedora ? >> >> http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/license.html >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469273 >> > > Free but GPL-Incompatible. > > Basically, this is a slightly modified PHP license. > > Use: > > License: QuickFix > > ~spot > > > > From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Mon Nov 3 15:20:52 2008 From: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mamoru Tasaka) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:20:52 +0900 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] QuickFix License In-Reply-To: <490C6DF0.3060304@ispbrasil.com.br> References: <490C6DF0.3060304@ispbrasil.com.br> Message-ID: <490F16D4.7050603@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Itamar - IspBrasil wrote, at 11/01/2008 11:55 PM +9:00: > this license is compatible with fedora ? > > http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/license.html > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469273 I guess this is ASL 1.1. Regards, Mamoru From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Nov 3 16:12:20 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:12:20 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] QuickFix License In-Reply-To: <490F16D4.7050603@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> References: <490C6DF0.3060304@ispbrasil.com.br> <490F16D4.7050603@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Message-ID: <1225728740.3159.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 00:20 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > Itamar - IspBrasil wrote, at 11/01/2008 11:55 PM +9:00: > > this license is compatible with fedora ? > > > > http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/license.html > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469273 > > I guess this is ASL 1.1. Aha! Yes, this is just ASL 1.1 with the names changed. I'm going senile in my old age, thanks Mamoru! Use: License: ASL 1.1 I've updated wiki/Licensing accordingly. ~spot From steven.moix at axianet.ch Tue Nov 4 17:35:47 2008 From: steven.moix at axianet.ch (Steven Moix) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:35:47 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Can I talk about RPM Fusion? Message-ID: <1225820147.3297.2.camel@hp6710.axianet.ch> Hello fedora-legal people! I'd like to know if I'm allowed to talk about RPM Fusion in a news I'm going to send to the French press? We don't have software patents in Europe, but I'm still not sure if it conflicts with some other guideline or legal issue. Thanks Steven Moix moixs at fedoraproject.org From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Nov 4 17:48:47 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:48:47 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Can I talk about RPM Fusion? In-Reply-To: <1225820147.3297.2.camel@hp6710.axianet.ch> References: <1225820147.3297.2.camel@hp6710.axianet.ch> Message-ID: <1225820927.3226.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 18:35 +0100, Steven Moix wrote: > Hello fedora-legal people! > > I'd like to know if I'm allowed to talk about RPM Fusion in a news I'm > going to send to the French press? We don't have software patents in > Europe, but I'm still not sure if it conflicts with some other guideline > or legal issue. Sure. You don't work for Red Hat and you're not advising people in the US. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Nov 4 20:27:30 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:27:30 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Is the EUPL v1.0 (European Union Public Licence) acceptable in Fedora In-Reply-To: <1225638393.13911.211.camel@vain.rhgalway> References: <1225638393.13911.211.camel@vain.rhgalway> Message-ID: <1225830450.3226.69.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 15:06 +0000, Caol?n McNamara wrote: > Here's one I hadn't be aware of before, the EUPL, European Union Public > Licence: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl which affects something I was > considering packaging. It does have in it an explicit ... This one is non-free, due to Article 13 (which says): The European Commission may put into force translations and/or binding new versions of this Licence, so far [sic] this is required and reasonable. New versions of the Licence will be published with a unique version number. The new version of the Licence becomes binding for You as soon as You become aware of its publication. This seems to mean that the following two situations can occur: 1. I'm a licensee of an EUPLv1 program. I begin using, modifying, copying, distributing etc. a verbatim copy of that program. During that time the EC issues EUPLv2, which imposes severely restrictive terms making EUPLv2 non-free. At some unclear point I might be held to have become "aware" of the new license. Suddenly my free software becomes proprietary software. 2. I create a derivative work of an EUPLv1 program by incorporating some GPLv2-licensed software. That seems to be covered by the "compatibility" clause in Article 5, which was intended to facilitate compatibility with certain copyleft licenses. However, suppose while engaged in distribution, EUPLv2 comes out and says, among possible other new restrictions, that those taking advantage of the compatibility provision (which somehow remains in force) are nonetheless held to the new restrictions once they become aware of EUPLv2. For example, I'm commercially distributing my GPLv2 work, incorporating the EUPLv1 program, and I learn that EUPLv2 prohibits commercial use. Suddenly I'm in breach of the new EUPL. Normally, I would try to reach out to the author to resolve the issue with their license, but in this case, the author appears to be IDABC, a commission of various European governments (http://www.osor.eu/). I couldn't find any reasonable point of contact there, maybe someone reading this can? As is, the license is non-free and has been added to the "Bad" list on the Licensing page. ~spot From luis at tieguy.org Tue Nov 4 20:34:44 2008 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:34:44 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Is the EUPL v1.0 (European Union Public Licence) acceptable in Fedora In-Reply-To: <1225830450.3226.69.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1225638393.13911.211.camel@vain.rhgalway> <1225830450.3226.69.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <2cb10c440811041234w253b1ben299f4b1265982cac@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 15:06 +0000, Caol?n McNamara wrote: >> Here's one I hadn't be aware of before, the EUPL, European Union Public >> Licence: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl which affects something I was >> considering packaging. It does have in it an explicit ... > > This one is non-free, due to Article 13 (which says): > > The European Commission may put into force translations and/or > binding new versions of this Licence, so far [sic] this is required > and reasonable. New versions of the Licence will be published with a > unique version number. The new version of the Licence becomes > binding for You as soon as You become aware of its publication. Note that, according to discussions between the authors and OSI, EUPL 1.1 is in the pipeline, which should resolve this issue (and some others raised by OSI) such that it should be acceptable to Fedora. (Ironically, because of this clause, at that time anything released under EUPL 1.0 should also become acceptable to Fedora ;) Luis From luis at tieguy.org Tue Nov 4 20:34:44 2008 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:34:44 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Is the EUPL v1.0 (European Union Public Licence) acceptable in Fedora In-Reply-To: <1225830450.3226.69.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1225638393.13911.211.camel@vain.rhgalway> <1225830450.3226.69.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <2cb10c440811041234w253b1ben299f4b1265982cac@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 15:06 +0000, Caol?n McNamara wrote: >> Here's one I hadn't be aware of before, the EUPL, European Union Public >> Licence: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl which affects something I was >> considering packaging. It does have in it an explicit ... > > This one is non-free, due to Article 13 (which says): > > The European Commission may put into force translations and/or > binding new versions of this Licence, so far [sic] this is required > and reasonable. New versions of the Licence will be published with a > unique version number. The new version of the Licence becomes > binding for You as soon as You become aware of its publication. Note that, according to discussions between the authors and OSI, EUPL 1.1 is in the pipeline, which should resolve this issue (and some others raised by OSI) such that it should be acceptable to Fedora. (Ironically, because of this clause, at that time anything released under EUPL 1.0 should also become acceptable to Fedora ;) Luis From jwboyer at gmail.com Tue Nov 4 21:13:12 2008 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 16:13:12 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Can I talk about RPM Fusion? In-Reply-To: <1225820927.3226.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1225820147.3297.2.camel@hp6710.axianet.ch> <1225820927.3226.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20081104211312.GB27793@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 12:48:47PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: >On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 18:35 +0100, Steven Moix wrote: >> Hello fedora-legal people! >> >> I'd like to know if I'm allowed to talk about RPM Fusion in a news I'm >> going to send to the French press? We don't have software patents in >> Europe, but I'm still not sure if it conflicts with some other guideline >> or legal issue. > >Sure. You don't work for Red Hat and you're not advising people in the >US. Because the internet has borders... josh From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Nov 4 22:19:03 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:19:03 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Can I talk about RPM Fusion? In-Reply-To: <20081104211312.GB27793@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <1225820147.3297.2.camel@hp6710.axianet.ch> <1225820927.3226.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20081104211312.GB27793@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <1225837143.3226.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 16:13 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 12:48:47PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > >On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 18:35 +0100, Steven Moix wrote: > >> Hello fedora-legal people! > >> > >> I'd like to know if I'm allowed to talk about RPM Fusion in a news I'm > >> going to send to the French press? We don't have software patents in > >> Europe, but I'm still not sure if it conflicts with some other guideline > >> or legal issue. > > > >Sure. You don't work for Red Hat and you're not advising people in the > >US. > > Because the internet has borders... There is an "and" in that sentence. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Nov 4 22:24:44 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:24:44 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Is the EUPL v1.0 (European Union Public Licence) acceptable in Fedora In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440811041234w253b1ben299f4b1265982cac@mail.gmail.com> References: <1225638393.13911.211.camel@vain.rhgalway> <1225830450.3226.69.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2cb10c440811041234w253b1ben299f4b1265982cac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1225837484.3226.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 15:34 -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 15:06 +0000, Caol?n McNamara wrote: > >> Here's one I hadn't be aware of before, the EUPL, European Union Public > >> Licence: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl which affects something I was > >> considering packaging. It does have in it an explicit ... > > > > This one is non-free, due to Article 13 (which says): > > > > The European Commission may put into force translations and/or > > binding new versions of this Licence, so far [sic] this is required > > and reasonable. New versions of the Licence will be published with a > > unique version number. The new version of the Licence becomes > > binding for You as soon as You become aware of its publication. > > > > Note that, according to discussions between the authors and OSI, EUPL > 1.1 is in the pipeline, which should resolve this issue (and some > others raised by OSI) such that it should be acceptable to Fedora. > (Ironically, because of this clause, at that time anything released > under EUPL 1.0 should also become acceptable to Fedora ;) Ideal, thanks for letting us know. ~spot From dominik at greysector.net Wed Nov 5 02:14:36 2008 From: dominik at greysector.net (Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 03:14:36 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Can I talk about RPM Fusion? In-Reply-To: <1225820147.3297.2.camel@hp6710.axianet.ch> References: <1225820147.3297.2.camel@hp6710.axianet.ch> Message-ID: <20081105021435.GD21844@mokona.greysector.net> On Tuesday, 04 November 2008 at 18:35, Steven Moix wrote: > Hello fedora-legal people! > > I'd like to know if I'm allowed to talk about RPM Fusion in a news I'm > going to send to the French press? > We don't have software patents in Europe, I'm afraid that's not entirely true. The EPO has granted hundreds of software patents and the national POs have granted some, too. Regards, R. -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" From mw_triad at users.sourceforge.net Wed Nov 5 00:31:26 2008 From: mw_triad at users.sourceforge.net (Matthew Woehlke) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:31:26 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Software is once again unpatentable in the United States In-Reply-To: <9b1db7c129b6250b6a2f325e6a75f59d.squirrel@mail.jcomserv.net> References: <64b14b300811021229h5551a891i990eb3fccca2b9b5@mail.gmail.com> <9b1db7c129b6250b6a2f325e6a75f59d.squirrel@mail.jcomserv.net> Message-ID: Jon Ciesla wrote: > Matthew Woehlke wrote: >> Also from http://ben.klemens.org/blog/arch/00000009.htm: >>> Despite claiming that all that matters is the >>> machine-or-transformation test, the ruling also bears in mind many >>> other necessary conditions for patentability, such as the rule that a >>> patent may not ?wholly pre-empt? a law of nature or principle or >>> mathematical formula. Also, if you wholly pre-empt a mathematical >>> algorithm within some narrow field of endeavor, the court rules that >>> this is still a pre-emption. I'll have a little more on this below. >> Note "a patent may not 'wholly pre-empt' ... a mathematical formula". >> >> ...which means all those codecs from livna/rpmfusion just became 100% >> legal, no royalty required*. >> >> (* assuming the copyright license is not an issue, of course) > > I assume an "official" statement on this from Fedora/RedHat legal folk > will be forthcoming. > > Unless it already has, and I missed it, which is entirely possible. Jeff already pointed out RH's press release. As has been stated, the Bilski decision does not paint the issue in black and white, and as such, I don't expect *Red Hat* to decide that including e.g. lame in Fedora is now okay. Nevertheless, if the rule that math cannot be patented is upheld, I think victory, at least for some areas that have historically caused much friction (i.e. multimedia codecs) is inevitable. (And since other areas fall more closely into "business methods", well... those patents are in for rough times as well.) And it's ammunition for non-paid "patented" codec users to say (rightfully) that the patents they are allegedly violating are, in fact, illegal. -- Matthew Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies. -- Igor Peshansky: Don't hippos love water even more than dogs? Dave Korn: Don't ask me. I didn't even know that hippos loved dogs. From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Fri Nov 7 15:31:01 2008 From: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mamoru Tasaka) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:31:01 +0900 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Mutual Termination for Patent Action on webmin Message-ID: <49145F35.2010408@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Hello. I am trying to look at webmin review request (bug 468570) because this is the second package the reporter (and my sponsornee) submitted. Then: webmin 1.430 has "PATENTS" file which contains: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mutual Termination for Patent Action. The License for the use of Webmin shall terminate automatically and You may no longer exercise any of the rights granted to You by this License if: 1. You file a lawsuit in any court alleging that any software that is licensed under this license infringes any patent claims that are essential to use that software. 2. You file a lawsuit in any court alleging that any OSI Certified open source software that is licensed under any license containing a "Mutual Termination for Patent Action" clause infringes any patent claims that are essential to use that software. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Can we treat this as one of the "licenses"? If so, I would appreciate it if this "license" is named if this is free and want to know if this is compatible with GPLv3 (perhaps this is not compatible with GPLv2). I guess this is very similar with what ASL 2.0 section 3 wants to say. Also it seems that the section 2 of this "license" is the same as the section 9 of OSI 1.0. Note: for the review request itself, I would appreciate anyone's help. Regards, Mamoru From orcanbahri at yahoo.com Tue Nov 11 17:21:47 2008 From: orcanbahri at yahoo.com (Orcan Ogetbil) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:21:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] reviving pdftk Message-ID: <295445.32918.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> pdftk had been removed from Fedora because it contained itext code which had licensing issues. Please see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=236310 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?component=pdftk&product=Fedora But since the itext's license issue is resolved, (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465511#c4 ) can we allow pdftk in Fedora again? Orcan "oget" Ogetbil From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Nov 11 17:27:23 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:27:23 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] reviving pdftk In-Reply-To: <295445.32918.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <295445.32918.qm@web32803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1226424443.3417.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 09:21 -0800, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > pdftk had been removed from Fedora because it contained itext code which had licensing issues. Please see: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=236310 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?component=pdftk&product=Fedora > > But since the itext's license issue is resolved, (see > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465511#c4 ) can we allow pdftk in Fedora again? Assuming it inherits the same license fixes, yes. :) It should be re-reviewed though. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Nov 12 16:49:13 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:49:13 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Mutual Termination for Patent Action on webmin In-Reply-To: <49145F35.2010408@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> References: <49145F35.2010408@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Message-ID: <1226508553.5519.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 00:31 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > Hello. > > I am trying to look at webmin review request (bug 468570) > because this is the second package the reporter (and my sponsornee) > submitted. Then: > > webmin 1.430 has "PATENTS" file which contains: > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Mutual Termination for Patent Action. The License for the use of Webmin shall > terminate automatically and You may no longer exercise any of the rights granted > to You by this License if: > > 1. You file a lawsuit in any court alleging that any software that is licensed > under this license infringes any patent claims that are essential to use > that software. > > 2. You file a lawsuit in any court alleging that any OSI Certified open source > software that is licensed under any license containing a "Mutual Termination > for Patent Action" clause infringes any patent claims that are essential to use > that software. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Can we treat this as one of the "licenses"? If so, I would appreciate it > if this "license" is named if this is free and want to know if this is > compatible with GPLv3 (perhaps this is not compatible with GPLv2). This is not a separate license, rather, it is an additional clause for the webmin license (which is otherwise BSD). This additional clause makes the webmin license GPLv2 and GPLv3 incompatible. Since webmin is a web application, there should not be any real concern as a result of this incompatibility (aside from code copying), but I will need to add a new entry to the Licensing table for webmin. Use: License: Webmin ~spot From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Thu Nov 13 08:20:49 2008 From: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mamoru Tasaka) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:20:49 +0900 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Mutual Termination for Patent Action on webmin In-Reply-To: <1226508553.5519.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <49145F35.2010408@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <1226508553.5519.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <491BE361.2060204@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 11/13/2008 01:49 AM +9:00: > On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 00:31 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: >> Hello. >> >> I am trying to look at webmin review request (bug 468570) >> because this is the second package the reporter (and my sponsornee) >> submitted. Then: >> >> webmin 1.430 has "PATENTS" file which contains: > This is not a separate license, rather, it is an additional clause for > the webmin license (which is otherwise BSD). This additional clause > makes the webmin license GPLv2 and GPLv3 incompatible. > > Since webmin is a web application, there should not be any real concern > as a result of this incompatibility (aside from code copying), but I > will need to add a new entry to the Licensing table for webmin. Use: > > License: Webmin > > ~spot Thank you. Mamoru From Jochen at herr-schmitt.de Sun Nov 16 20:49:07 2008 From: Jochen at herr-schmitt.de (Jochen Schmitt) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:49:07 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Licence of glew documentation ok now? Message-ID: <49208743.9070305@herr-schmitt.de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hallo, in the past the documentation of the glew package was removed because it was licensed with a non-redistributable license. After I have filled a bug on upstreams bug tracking system the license was changed. The new license text is attached on the and of this mail. Now I want to ask, it this ok for Fedora. From my point of view, it is. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt The OpenGL Extension Wrangler Library Copyright (C) 2002-2008, Milan Ikits Copyright (C) 2002-2008, Marcelo E. Magallon Copyright (C) 2002, Lev Povalahev All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * The name of the author may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkkghzoACgkQT2AHK6txfgwQ2wCdFYU8Vb/d62EwIAG71I4dTNGT 2M8An1fcrRpHBJYVGvGkq1NYC7wbV0bd =V/l9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tcallawa at redhat.com Sun Nov 16 21:07:10 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:07:10 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Licence of glew documentation ok now? In-Reply-To: <49208743.9070305@herr-schmitt.de> References: <49208743.9070305@herr-schmitt.de> Message-ID: <1226869630.13206.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 21:49 +0100, Jochen Schmitt wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hallo, > > in the past the documentation of the glew package was removed because > it was licensed with a > non-redistributable license. > > After I have filled a bug on upstreams bug tracking system the license > was changed. The new > license text is attached on the and of this mail. > > Now I want to ask, it this ok for Fedora. From my point of view, it is. Yes, this is MIT now. ~spot From dan at danny.cz Wed Nov 19 16:58:29 2008 From: dan at danny.cz (Dan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hor=E1k?=) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:58:29 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] THOR Public License (based on MPL) Message-ID: <1227113909.3640.42.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Hi, I am preparing a package (Atari++, http://www.math.tu-berlin.de/% 7Ethor/atari++/) that is using a clone of the MPLv1.1. What License: tag should I use? All files related to licensing are attached, source files contain a header like in adrspace.cpp. Thanks, Dan -------------- next part -------------- This package was debianized by Thomas Richter on Sat, 2 Oct 2004 11:27:25 +0200. Upstream Author(s): Thomas Richter Copyright: Thomas Richter You are free to distribute this software under the terms of the THOR Public Licence. The complete text of this licence can be found in the main directory of the distribution in the file README.licence. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: README.LEGAL Type: text/x-readme Size: 1679 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: README.licence Type: text/x-readme Size: 23787 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: adrspace.cpp Type: text/x-c++src Size: 382 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Nov 19 18:04:39 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:04:39 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] THOR Public License (based on MPL) In-Reply-To: <1227113909.3640.42.camel@eagle.danny.cz> References: <1227113909.3640.42.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Message-ID: <1227117879.3363.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 17:58 +0100, Dan Hor?k wrote: > I am preparing a package (Atari++, http://www.math.tu-berlin.de/% > 7Ethor/atari++/) that is using a clone of the MPLv1.1. What License: > tag > should I use? All files related to licensing are attached, source > files > contain a header like in adrspace.cpp. Normally, I'd just say to use MPLv1.1 here, but since he changed the jurisdiction of law, it is worth noting it as a separate license. I've added it to the Licensing list. Use: License: TPL ~spot From tibbs at math.uh.edu Wed Nov 19 18:36:39 2008 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: 19 Nov 2008 12:36:39 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] THOR Public License (based on MPL) In-Reply-To: <1227113909.3640.42.camel@eagle.danny.cz> References: <1227113909.3640.42.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Message-ID: This package brings up a couple of other issues. Firstly, it's an emulator, but it doesn't seem to need any original ROMs to run because they're written their own work-alikes. I'm assuming this is OK, but I guess it's worth asking. Secondly, those work-alike ROMs are included in pre-assembled format, with the source being made available separately. What are our obligations with respect to providing the source to these ROMs? And, perhaps offtopic for this list, how does this jibe with the general Fedora "build everything from source" goal? - J< From dan at danny.cz Wed Nov 19 18:56:41 2008 From: dan at danny.cz (Dan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hor=E1k?=) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:56:41 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] THOR Public License (based on MPL) In-Reply-To: References: <1227113909.3640.42.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Message-ID: <1227121001.3640.64.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Jason L Tibbitts III p??e v St 19. 11. 2008 v 12:36 -0600: > This package brings up a couple of other issues. > > Firstly, it's an emulator, but it doesn't seem to need any original > ROMs to run because they're written their own work-alikes. I'm > assuming this is OK, but I guess it's worth asking. > I have made the same assumption before trying to package it officially. > Secondly, those work-alike ROMs are included in pre-assembled format, > with the source being made available separately. What are our > obligations with respect to providing the source to these ROMs? And, > perhaps offtopic for this list, how does this jibe with the general > Fedora "build everything from source" goal? Now there is a technical problem to build the ROM, because we don't have a package for the cc65 cross-compiler environment. But IMHO it should not be required to build such non-native content from sources assuming its license is free enough. Dan From dan at danny.cz Wed Nov 19 20:42:10 2008 From: dan at danny.cz (Dan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hor=E1k?=) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:42:10 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] cc65 license Message-ID: <1227127330.3640.83.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Hi, can someone check the cc65 cross-compiler environment license at http://www.cc65.org/#Copyright ? The second part related to libs and utils is "zlib/libpng license", but I cannot decode the first part. Thanks, Dan From tibbs at math.uh.edu Wed Nov 19 20:51:25 2008 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: 19 Nov 2008 14:51:25 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] cc65 license In-Reply-To: <1227127330.3640.83.camel@eagle.danny.cz> References: <1227127330.3640.83.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Message-ID: >>>>> "DH" == Dan Hor?k writes: DH> Hi, can someone check the cc65 cross-compiler environment license DH> at http://www.cc65.org/#Copyright ? " Anyone may copy or redistribute these programs, provided that: 1: You don't charge anything for the copy. It is permissable (sic) to charge a nominal fee for media, etc. " seems to be non-free to me. I've no idea why they say this at the end: " This copyright notice is based on the one published by the Free Software Foundation, sometimes known as the GNU project. The idea is the same as theirs, ie the software is free, and is intended to stay that way. Everybody has the right to copy, modify, and re- distribute this software. Nobody has the right to prevent anyone else from copying, modifying or redistributing it. " since it doesn't seem to me that it's even GPL-compatible. The original copyright date is 1989; I guess it was a more naive time. - J< From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Nov 19 21:53:59 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:53:59 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] cc65 license In-Reply-To: References: <1227127330.3640.83.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Message-ID: <1227131639.4405.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 14:51 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > " > Anyone may copy or redistribute these programs, provided that: > > 1: You don't charge anything for the copy. It is permissable (sic) > to > charge a nominal fee for media, etc. > " > > seems to be non-free to me. I've no idea why they say this at the > end: Yep, non-free. ~spot From comp.ogz at gmail.com Mon Nov 24 12:11:54 2008 From: comp.ogz at gmail.com (Oguz Yarimtepe) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:11:54 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] e legal issue question Message-ID: <1227528714.6467.29.camel@vestel-laptop> Hi, I need an information about the legal statement about using Fedora. My company is an ODM and producing laptops. One of our customer is asked the laptops Linux installed. There will not be any charge for the operating system. I was checking the Fedora TradeMark GuideLines. I haven't seems any restriction for selling laptops with Fedora installed. But i want to get that info from the first hand. After the installation, third party wlan and modem drivers will be installed. Also will be installed a GPL application that shows on screen display when the wireless is on and off from hotkeys. So according to the TradeMark Policy indicating these software are not provided and maintained by the Fedora Project and also applying the Logo Usage Guidelines to the DVD itself will be fine. Will be happy if you give information about this issue. Regards, O?uz Yar?mtepe From stickster at gmail.com Mon Nov 24 12:43:38 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:43:38 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] e legal issue question In-Reply-To: <1227528714.6467.29.camel@vestel-laptop> References: <1227528714.6467.29.camel@vestel-laptop> Message-ID: <20081124124338.GF11897@salma.internal.frields.org> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 02:11:54PM +0200, Oguz Yarimtepe wrote: > I need an information about the legal statement about using Fedora. My > company is an ODM and producing laptops. One of our customer is asked > the laptops Linux installed. There will not be any charge for the > operating system. I was checking the Fedora TradeMark GuideLines. I > haven't seems any restriction for selling laptops with Fedora installed. > But i want to get that info from the first hand. > > After the installation, third party wlan and modem drivers will be > installed. Also will be installed a GPL application that shows on screen > display when the wireless is on and off from hotkeys. > > So according to the TradeMark Policy indicating these software are not > provided and maintained by the Fedora Project and also applying the Logo > Usage Guidelines to the DVD itself will be fine. > > Will be happy if you give information about this issue. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Trademark_guidelines#Distributing_combinations_of_Fedora_software_with_non-Fedora_or_modified_Fedora_software Because you are distributing non-Fedora software combined with Fedora software on the same medium, you *may not* use the official Fedora logo to label that media or the laptops. However, you may use the Secondary Mark ("Fedora Remix") to label the media and laptops. As you noted, you must display a notice prominently indicating that the software is not provided or supported by the Fedora Project, that official Fedora software is available through the Fedora Project website, and link to the Fedora Project website at http://fedoraproject.org/ . You must also follow the secondary mark usage guidelines, which you can find here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Secondary_trademark_usage_guidelines If you wish to use the official Fedora logo instead, you must not combine the official Fedora software with any third-party software on CD/DVD or on the laptop. You could offer third-party software and instructions to the end-user on a separate medium, like a separate CD/DVD, for them to install 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: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dcarter at entertain-me.com Sun Nov 30 13:58:52 2008 From: dcarter at entertain-me.com (David Carter) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:28:52 -0330 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License opinion required Message-ID: <0642D6A9-E46D-4C73-A831-5E3EEF9AD688@entertain-me.com> Hi, I'm packaging software with the following license on part of the code, and I need to know if it's OK. License Agreement for Application Response Measurement (ARM) Version 4.0 Software Development Kit (SDK) YOU MUST AGREE TO THESE TERMS BEFORE YOU DOWNLOAD OR USE THIS PROGRAM. ANY SUCH USE OR DOWNLOADING INDICATES YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS. Hewlett-Packard Corporation (HP) and tang-IT Consulting GmbH (tang-IT) grant you a license to use the ARM SDK. The ARM SDK is copyrighted and licensed (not sold). HP and tang-IT do not transfer title to the ARM SDK to you. You obtain no rights other than those granted under this license. Under this license, you may: 1. Use the ARM SDK on one or more machines at a time; 2. Make copies of the ARM SDK for use or backup purposes within your enterprise; 3. Modify the ARM SDK and merge it into another program; and 4. Make copies of the original file you download and distribute it, provided that you transfer a copy of this license agreement to the other party, and provided that the other party agrees to all terms of this license. You must reproduce the copyright notice and any other legend of ownership on each copy or partial copy of the ARM SDK. You may NOT sublicense, rent, lease, or assign the ARM SDK or any part of the ARM SDK. Except as expressly stated above, HP and tang-IT grant no other licenses, express or implied, by estoppel or otherwise, to any intellectual property rights. HP tang-IT do not warrant that the ARM SDK is free from claims by any party of copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, or any other intellectual property infringement. LIMITED LIABILITY Under no circumstances are HP and tang-IT liable for any of the following, even if HP and tang-IT are informed of their possibility: 1. third party claims against you for losses or damages; 2. loss of, or damage to, your records or data; or 3. economic consequential damages (including lost profits or savings) or incremental damages. 4. punitive or non-compensatory damages of any sort NO WARRANTIES THIS PROGRAM IS PROVIDED "AS IS." HP AND tang-IT DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. HP and tang-IT do not warrant uninterrupted or error free operation of the SDK. Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties or limits on liability, so the above exclusions may not apply to you. HP and tang-IT have no obligation to provide service, defect correction, or any maintenance for the SDK. HP and tang-IT have no obligation to supply any ARM SDK updates or enhancements to you even if such are or later become available. You may terminate this license at any time. HP and tang-IT may terminate this license if you fail to comply with any of its terms. In either event, you must destroy all your copies of the ARM SDK. You are responsible for the payment of any taxes resulting from this license. You may not sell, transfer, assign, or subcontract any of your rights or obligations under this license. Any attempt to do so is void. No licensee may bring a legal action more than two years after the cause of action arose. You hereby waive your right to a trial by jury and agree that any action arising from the relationship of the parties to this license shall be decided by a court without a jury. TIA, Dave