From orcanbahri at yahoo.com Wed Oct 1 04:57:16 2008 From: orcanbahri at yahoo.com (Orcan Ogetbil) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:57:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] re-packaging iText Message-ID: <110459.54783.qm@web32806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi, I wanted to bring into attention the recent development in the licensing of the iText. This software was included in Fedora in the past but then removed due to licensing trouble: (i) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=176981 and especially (ii) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=236309 According to the second link it was removed from F-7 because of the fact that it contained some Sun-licensed files. I downloaded the software from its current website: http://www.lowagie.com/iText/download.html The website claims a dual MPLv1.1 / LGPL license. Inside the package there is a text file (core/com/lowagie/text/misc_licenses.txt), which I will paste to the bottom of this email. The most relevant parts of this txt file are in section (3). The original license ended with the sentence: "You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility." The word "licensed" caused the trouble in the past (see comment#2 in (ii)) as it made the software non-free. But according to the txt file there has been some email traffic between the original developer and iText developer on January 23, 2008 and the word "licensed" has been removed from that sentence in the final license. I think we can re-consider packaging this software. I want to make sure we are on solid grounds. Please post your opinions. Orcan -----misc_licenses.txt----- (1) ExceptionConverter: The original version of this class was published in an article by Heinz Kabutz. Read http://www.javaspecialists.co.za/archive/newsletter.do?issue=033&print=yes&locale=en_US "This material from The Java(tm) Specialists' Newsletter by Maximum Solutions (South Africa). Please contact Maximum Solutions for more information. (2) SimpleXMLParser: The original version of this class was published in a JavaWorld article by Steven Brandt: http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/javatips/jw-javatip128.html Jennifer Orr (JavaWorld) wrote: "You have permission to use the code appearing in Steven Brandt's JavaWorld article, 'Java Tip 128: Create a quick-and-dirty XML parser.' We ask that you reference the author as the creator and JavaWorld as the original publisher of the code." Steven Brandt also agreed with the use of this class. (3) The following files contain material that was copyrighted by SUN: com/lowagie/text/pdf/LZWDecoder.java (first appearance in iText: 2002-02-08) com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/BmpImage.java (first appearance in iText: 2003-06-20) com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/PngImage.java (first appearance in iText: 2003-04-25) com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/TIFFDirectory.java (first appearance in iText: 2003-04-09) com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/TIFFFaxDecoder.java (first appearance in iText: 2003-04-09) com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/TIFFField.java (first appearance in iText: 2003-04-09) com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/TIFFLZWDecoder.java (first appearance in iText: 2003-04-09) The original code was released under the BSD license, and contained the following extra restriction: "You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility." In a mail sent to Bruno Lowagie on January 23, 2008, Brian Burkhalter (@sun.com) writes: "This code is under a BSD license and supersedes the older codec packages on which your code is based. It also includes numerous fixes among them being the ability to handle a lot of 'broken' TIFFs." Note that numerous fixes were applied to the code used in iText by Paulo Soares, but apart from the fixes there were no essential changes between the code that was originally adapted and the code that is now available under the following license: Copyright (c) 2005 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: - Redistribution of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. - Redistribution 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. Neither the name of Sun Microsystems, Inc. or the names of contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. This software is provided "AS IS," without a warranty of any kind. ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT, ARE HEREBY EXCLUDED. SUN MIDROSYSTEMS, INC. ("SUN") AND ITS LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES SUFFERED BY LICENSEE AS A RESULT OF USING, MODIFYING OR DISTRIBUTING THIS SOFTWARE OR ITS DERIVATIVES. IN NO EVENT WILL SUN OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOST REVENUE, PROFIT OR DATA, OR FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, HOWEVER CAUSED AND REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF SUN HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. You acknowledge that this software is not designed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility. The main difference can be found in the final paragraph: the restriction that the source code is not "licensed" in this particular situation has been removed. FYI: Brian also added: "A bit of history might be in order. The codec classes that you used originally were based on some classes included with JAI but not strictly part of JAI. As of Java SE 1.4 an official Image I/O framework was added in javax.imageio.... This frameork supports these formats: Java 1.4: GIF (read only), JPEG, PNG Java 1.5: Added support for BMP and WBMP Java 1.6: Added support for writing GIF The JAI Image I/O Tools packages (jai-imageio-core) were created to support formats handled by JAI but not included in Java SE as well as some new things like JPEG2000." (4) the file com/lowagie/text/pdf/codec/TIFFConstants and some other TIFF related code is derived from LIBTIFF: Copyright (c) 1988-1997 Sam Leffler Copyright (c) 1991-1997 Silicon Graphics, Inc. Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that (i) the above copyright notices and this permission notice appear in all copies of the software and related documentation, and (ii) the names of Sam Leffler and Silicon Graphics may not be used in any advertising or publicity relating to the software without the specific, prior written permission of Sam Leffler and Silicon Graphics. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS-IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL SAM LEFFLER OR SILICON GRAPHICS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER OR NOT ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DAMAGE, AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. (5) BidiOrder: As stated in the Javadoc comments, materials from Unicode.org are used in the class com/lowagie/text/pdf/BidiOrder.java The following license applies to these materials: http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html#Exhibit1 EXHIBIT 1 UNICODE, INC. LICENSE AGREEMENT - DATA FILES AND SOFTWARE Unicode Data Files include all data files under the directories http://www.unicode.org/Public/, http://www.unicode.org/reports/, and http://www.unicode.org/cldr/data/ . Unicode Software includes any source code published in the Unicode Standard or under the directories http://www.unicode.org/Public/, http://www.unicode.org/reports/, and http://www.unicode.org/cldr/data/. NOTICE TO USER: Carefully read the following legal agreement. BY DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING, COPYING OR OTHERWISE USING UNICODE INC.'S DATA FILES ("DATA FILES"), AND/OR SOFTWARE ("SOFTWARE"), YOU UNEQUIVOCALLY ACCEPT, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY, ALL OF THE TERMS AND CNDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT DOWNLOAD, INSTALL, COP, DISTRIBUTE OR USE THE DATA FILES OR SOFTWARE. ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT DOWNLOAD, INSTALL, COPY, DISTRIBUTE OR USE THE DATA FILES OR SOFTWARE. COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSION NOTICE Copyright (C) 1991-2007 Unicode, Inc. All rights reserved. Distributed under the Terms of Use in http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of the Unicode data files and any associated documentation (the "Data Files") or Unicode software and any associated documentation (the "Software") to deal in the Data Files or Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies of the Data Files or Software, and to permit persons to whom the Data Files or Software are furnished to do so, provided that (a) the above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear with all copies of the Data Files or Software, (b) both the above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in associated documentation, and (c) there is clear notice in each modified Data File or in the Software as well as in the documentation associated with the Data File(s) or Software that the data or software has been modified. THE DATA FILES AND SOFTWARE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTAILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR HOLDERS INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, OR ANY SPECIAL INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE DATA FILES OR SOFTWARE. Except as contained in this notice, the name of a copyright holder shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in these Data Files or Software without prior written authorization of the copyright holder. From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Oct 1 12:03:17 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:03:17 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] re-packaging iText In-Reply-To: <110459.54783.qm@web32806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <110459.54783.qm@web32806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1222862597.3946.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 21:57 -0700, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > Hi, I wanted to bring into attention the recent development in the licensing of the iText. This software was included in Fedora in the past but then removed due to licensing trouble: > (i) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=176981 > and especially > (ii) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=236309 > > According to the second link it was removed from F-7 because of the fact that it contained some Sun-licensed files. > > I downloaded the software from its current website: > http://www.lowagie.com/iText/download.html > > The website claims a dual MPLv1.1 / LGPL license. Inside the package there is a text file (core/com/lowagie/text/misc_licenses.txt), which I will paste to the bottom of this email. > > The most relevant parts of this txt file are in section (3). The original license ended with the sentence: "You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility." The word "licensed" caused the trouble in the past (see comment#2 in (ii)) as it made the software non-free. But according to the txt file there has been some email traffic between the original developer and iText developer on January 23, 2008 and the word "licensed" has been removed from that sentence in the final license. > > I think we can re-consider packaging this software. I want to make sure we are on solid grounds. > > Please post your opinions. Show me a package, and I'll audit it. ~spot From orcanbahri at yahoo.com Thu Oct 2 05:34:42 2008 From: orcanbahri at yahoo.com (Orcan Ogetbil) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 22:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] re-packaging iText In-Reply-To: <1222862597.3946.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <142894.96729.qm@web32808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > > I think we can re-consider packaging this software. I > want to make sure we are on solid grounds. > > > > Please post your opinions. > > Show me a package, and I'll audit it. > > ~spot I looked into the package today. It has some dependencies (bouncycastle) that need to be upgraded in Fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465203 This may take a while, depending on the original packager, but I will update you when time comes. oget From orcanbahri at yahoo.com Fri Oct 3 18:09:12 2008 From: orcanbahri at yahoo.com (Orcan Ogetbil) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:09:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] re-packaging iText In-Reply-To: <1222862597.3946.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <201743.94570.qm@web32806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 10/1/08, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > From: Tom "spot" Callaway > Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] re-packaging iText > To: orcanbahri at yahoo.com > Cc: fedora-legal-list at redhat.com > Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2008, 8:03 AM > On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 21:57 -0700, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > > Hi, I wanted to bring into attention the recent > development in the licensing of the iText. This software was > included in Fedora in the past but then removed due to > licensing trouble: > > (i) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=176981 > > and especially > > (ii) > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=236309 > > > > According to the second link it was removed from F-7 > because of the fact that it contained some Sun-licensed > files. > > > > I downloaded the software from its current website: > > http://www.lowagie.com/iText/download.html > > > > The website claims a dual MPLv1.1 / LGPL license. > Inside the package there is a text file > (core/com/lowagie/text/misc_licenses.txt), which I will > paste to the bottom of this email. > > > > The most relevant parts of this txt file are in > section (3). The original license ended with the sentence: > "You acknowledge that Software is not designed, > licensed or intended for use in the design, construction, > operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility." The > word "licensed" caused the trouble in the past > (see comment#2 in (ii)) as it made the software non-free. > But according to the txt file there has been some email > traffic between the original developer and iText developer > on January 23, 2008 and the word "licensed" has > been removed from that sentence in the final license. > > > > I think we can re-consider packaging this software. I > want to make sure we are on solid grounds. > > > > Please post your opinions. > > Show me a package, and I'll audit it. > > ~spot The package is in bugzilla now. Any feedback will be appreciated. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465511 oget From dominik at greysector.net Thu Oct 9 19:31:53 2008 From: dominik at greysector.net (Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:31:53 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CeCILL licence Message-ID: <20081009193152.GD16326@mokona.greysector.net> Hi. SciLab has changed its licence to CeCILLv2[1], which claims to be GPLv2+ compatible. I tried reading it and it gave me a headache. It seems to contain a few dubious passages[2]. Could RH Legal have a look at it and decide if it's OK to include code licensed under it in Fedora? Ideally, I'd like to have an answer for all four licences listed on this page, but CeCILLv2 would suffice for now. Thanks, R. [1] http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html [2] In particular: second paragraph of Article 5, last paragraph of 6.4 and Article 9.4 -- 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 tibbs at math.uh.edu Thu Oct 9 19:59:49 2008 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: 09 Oct 2008 14:59:49 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CeCILL licence In-Reply-To: <20081009193152.GD16326@mokona.greysector.net> References: <20081009193152.GD16326@mokona.greysector.net> Message-ID: >>>>> "DM" == Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski writes: DM> Hi. SciLab has changed its licence to CeCILLv2[1], which claims to DM> be GPLv2+ compatible. I tried reading it and it gave me a DM> headache. It seems to contain a few dubious passages[2]. Could RH DM> Legal have a look at it and decide if it's OK to include code DM> licensed under it in Fedora? Well, CeCILLv2 is already on the license list as acceptable. DM> Ideally, I'd like to have an answer for all four licences listed DM> on this page, but CeCILLv2 would suffice for now. There are three CeCILL licenses listed currently; which one is missing? - J< From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Oct 9 20:01:26 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:01:26 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CeCILL licence In-Reply-To: <20081009193152.GD16326@mokona.greysector.net> References: <20081009193152.GD16326@mokona.greysector.net> Message-ID: <1223582486.20118.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 21:31 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > Hi. > > SciLab has changed its licence to CeCILLv2[1], which claims to be GPLv2+ > compatible. I tried reading it and it gave me a headache. It seems > to contain a few dubious passages[2]. Could RH Legal have a look at it > and decide if it's OK to include code licensed under it in Fedora? Yep, they're all fine, they were in the Licensing list already: CeCILL License v2 is Free and GPL compatible. (License: CeCILL) CeCILL-B License is Free but GPL-incompatible (License: CeCILL-B) CeCILL-C License is Free but GPL-incompatible (License: CeCILL-C) I'll worry about v1 if something actually uses it. ~spot From dominik at greysector.net Thu Oct 9 20:10:18 2008 From: dominik at greysector.net (Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 22:10:18 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CeCILL licence In-Reply-To: <1223582486.20118.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20081009193152.GD16326@mokona.greysector.net> <1223582486.20118.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20081009201017.GE16326@mokona.greysector.net> On Thursday, 09 October 2008 at 22:01, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 21:31 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > Hi. > > > > SciLab has changed its licence to CeCILLv2[1], which claims to be GPLv2+ > > compatible. I tried reading it and it gave me a headache. It seems > > to contain a few dubious passages[2]. Could RH Legal have a look at it > > and decide if it's OK to include code licensed under it in Fedora? > > Yep, they're all fine, they were in the Licensing list already: > > CeCILL License v2 is Free and GPL compatible. (License: CeCILL) > CeCILL-B License is Free but GPL-incompatible (License: CeCILL-B) > CeCILL-C License is Free but GPL-incompatible (License: CeCILL-C) > > I'll worry about v1 if something actually uses it. Thanks and sorry for bothering you. I didn't think to check the Licensing list, because someone mentioned this to me as a new occurence (SciLab's licence change, that is). 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 tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Oct 9 20:18:28 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:18:28 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CeCILL licence In-Reply-To: References: <20081009193152.GD16326@mokona.greysector.net> Message-ID: <1223583508.20118.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 14:59 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > There are three CeCILL licenses listed currently; which one is > missing? CeCILL v1... but since I'm not aware of anything that uses it, we've never bothered. ~spot From tibbs at math.uh.edu Wed Oct 15 03:19:01 2008 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: 14 Oct 2008 22:19:01 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Version 1 of the CeCILL license Message-ID: Remember just last week when it was mentioned that folks would look at CeCILL v1 when someone submitted something under that license? Well, there was already something in the review queue and tonight I happened upon it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465750 R-GeneR, a specific bit of genetics software, seems to be under CeCILL v1 as evidenced by the copying file, which begins with "FREE SOFTWARE LICENSING AGREEMENT CeCILL" and ends with "Version 1 of 06/21/2004". Of specific interest here is GPL (v2) compatibility, because R is GPLv2 and R plugins are linked with both libR and libreadline. - J< From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Wed Oct 15 03:57:35 2008 From: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mamoru Tasaka) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:57:35 +0900 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Version 1 of the CeCILL license In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48F56A2F.2010700@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Jason L Tibbitts III wrote, at 10/15/2008 12:19 PM +9:00: > Remember just last week when it was mentioned that folks would look at > CeCILL v1 when someone submitted something under that license? Well, > there was already something in the review queue and tonight I happened > upon it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465750 > > R-GeneR, a specific bit of genetics software, seems to be under CeCILL > v1 as evidenced by the copying file, which begins with "FREE SOFTWARE > LICENSING AGREEMENT CeCILL" and ends with "Version 1 of 06/21/2004". > > Of specific interest here is GPL (v2) compatibility, because R is > GPLv2 and R plugins are linked with both libR and libreadline. > > - J< As far as I checked the CeCILLv1, this is GPL compatible, because of the section 5.3.4. Mamoru From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Oct 15 14:33:06 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:03:06 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: About breaking GPL license and copyrights on Fedora Core. In-Reply-To: <48F5F81A.10800@redhat.com> References: <000601c92b0a$b5bc65a0$6500a8c0@Creo> <48EFC6F9.4000504@fedoraproject.org> <16de708d0810101427n59a5b75fr274485fce540f073@mail.gmail.com> <48EFCBC9.5060906@fedoraproject.org> <48EFCFF1.6020708@fedoraproject.org> <48F5F81A.10800@redhat.com> Message-ID: <48F5FF22.6000603@fedoraproject.org> Giulio Fidente wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> Jon Stanley wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Rahul Sundaram >>> wrote: >>> >>>> There is no need to translate. Refer http://www.linux-xp.com/. I haven't >>>> looked for source code. >>> Interesting. I tried the "Buy Now" and "Download Now" links on the >>> English version of the site and got nowhere. I do notice mention that >>> I have to register in order to use the product beyond a 30-day >>> evaluation period. I *think* that this may be an issue under GPLv3 >>> section 6, if there is any GPLv3 software in the distro, which cannot >>> obviously be determined without a copy of it. >> This is a Russian organization. I doubt we want to waste money trying to >> get a hold of this product to hunt down whether the restrictions on the >> end product is evasive of any specific license within. Wikipedia article >> states that they do not respond to email. It doesn't appear to have made >> any new releases and seems to be dead. > > btw it is availabe for download at: > > ftp://downloads.linux-xp.com/pub/linux-xp/desktop/2008/international/LXPD-2008-I-INTERNATIONAL-862-i386-DVD.iso > > and or > > ftp://downloads.linux-xp.com/pub/linux-xp/desktop/2008/international/LXPD-2008-I-INTERNATIONAL-862-i386-DVD.iso.torrent CC'ing fedora-legal list. Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Oct 15 15:03:37 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:03:37 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: About breaking GPL license and copyrights on Fedora Core. In-Reply-To: <48F5FF22.6000603@fedoraproject.org> References: <000601c92b0a$b5bc65a0$6500a8c0@Creo> <48EFC6F9.4000504@fedoraproject.org> <16de708d0810101427n59a5b75fr274485fce540f073@mail.gmail.com> <48EFCBC9.5060906@fedoraproject.org> <48EFCFF1.6020708@fedoraproject.org> <48F5F81A.10800@redhat.com> <48F5FF22.6000603@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1224083017.3270.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 20:03 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > CC'ing fedora-legal list. Well, that's an awful lot of content without much context. Care to explain what the legal concern is? ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Oct 15 15:06:44 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:36:44 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: About breaking GPL license and copyrights on Fedora Core. In-Reply-To: <1224083017.3270.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <000601c92b0a$b5bc65a0$6500a8c0@Creo> <48EFC6F9.4000504@fedoraproject.org> <16de708d0810101427n59a5b75fr274485fce540f073@mail.gmail.com> <48EFCBC9.5060906@fedoraproject.org> <48EFCFF1.6020708@fedoraproject.org> <48F5F81A.10800@redhat.com> <48F5FF22.6000603@fedoraproject.org> <1224083017.3270.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <48F60704.1090809@fedoraproject.org> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 20:03 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> CC'ing fedora-legal list. > > Well, that's an awful lot of content without much context. Care to > explain what the legal concern is? Linux-XP is a Fedora derived distribution and we got a mail to the webmaster's id (fedora-websites list) that this distribution is violating the GPL license by not distributing source code. Rahul From gfidente at redhat.com Wed Oct 15 15:30:52 2008 From: gfidente at redhat.com (Giulio Fidente) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:30:52 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: About breaking GPL license and copyrights on Fedora Core. In-Reply-To: <48F60704.1090809@fedoraproject.org> References: <000601c92b0a$b5bc65a0$6500a8c0@Creo> <48EFC6F9.4000504@fedoraproject.org> <16de708d0810101427n59a5b75fr274485fce540f073@mail.gmail.com> <48EFCBC9.5060906@fedoraproject.org> <48EFCFF1.6020708@fedoraproject.org> <48F5F81A.10800@redhat.com> <48F5FF22.6000603@fedoraproject.org> <1224083017.3270.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <48F60704.1090809@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <48F60CAC.1070708@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >> On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 20:03 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> >>> CC'ing fedora-legal list. >> >> Well, that's an awful lot of content without much context. Care to >> explain what the legal concern is? > > Linux-XP is a Fedora derived distribution and we got a mail to the > webmaster's id (fedora-websites list) that this distribution is > violating the GPL license by not distributing source code. exploring the ftp I found this: ftp://downloads.linux-xp.com/pub/sources_and_patches/SRPMS/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkj2DKoACgkQUSr9JAjXM7rIHQCgmEXDPwLGEUxDNFJ0Vsct1AJ+ OTkAn1Zr3j504cgjpGbTxVmbF4JFcT0V =Dm61 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Oct 15 15:46:59 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:46:59 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: About breaking GPL license and copyrights on Fedora Core. In-Reply-To: <48F60CAC.1070708@redhat.com> References: <000601c92b0a$b5bc65a0$6500a8c0@Creo> <48EFC6F9.4000504@fedoraproject.org> <16de708d0810101427n59a5b75fr274485fce540f073@mail.gmail.com> <48EFCBC9.5060906@fedoraproject.org> <48EFCFF1.6020708@fedoraproject.org> <48F5F81A.10800@redhat.com> <48F5FF22.6000603@fedoraproject.org> <1224083017.3270.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <48F60704.1090809@fedoraproject.org> <48F60CAC.1070708@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1224085619.3270.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 17:30 +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > >> On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 20:03 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> > >>> CC'ing fedora-legal list. > >> > >> Well, that's an awful lot of content without much context. Care to > >> explain what the legal concern is? > > > > Linux-XP is a Fedora derived distribution and we got a mail to the > > webmaster's id (fedora-websites list) that this distribution is > > violating the GPL license by not distributing source code. > > exploring the ftp I found this: > > ftp://downloads.linux-xp.com/pub/sources_and_patches/SRPMS/ Looks like they're distributing some source code. Are there specific areas of concern? ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Oct 15 16:01:26 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:31:26 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: About breaking GPL license and copyrights on Fedora Core. In-Reply-To: <1224085619.3270.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <000601c92b0a$b5bc65a0$6500a8c0@Creo> <48EFC6F9.4000504@fedoraproject.org> <16de708d0810101427n59a5b75fr274485fce540f073@mail.gmail.com> <48EFCBC9.5060906@fedoraproject.org> <48EFCFF1.6020708@fedoraproject.org> <48F5F81A.10800@redhat.com> <48F5FF22.6000603@fedoraproject.org> <1224083017.3270.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <48F60704.1090809@fedoraproject.org> <48F60CAC.1070708@redhat.com> <1224085619.3270.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <48F613D6.6010401@fedoraproject.org> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 17:30 +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 20:03 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>>> >>>>> CC'ing fedora-legal list. >>>> Well, that's an awful lot of content without much context. Care to >>>> explain what the legal concern is? >>> Linux-XP is a Fedora derived distribution and we got a mail to the >>> webmaster's id (fedora-websites list) that this distribution is >>> violating the GPL license by not distributing source code. >> exploring the ftp I found this: >> >> ftp://downloads.linux-xp.com/pub/sources_and_patches/SRPMS/ > > Looks like they're distributing some source code. Are there specific > areas of concern? We can ask the original poster (CC'ed). The threads starts at https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-websites-list/2008-October/msg00044.html Rahul From jonstanley at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 16:49:07 2008 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:49:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: About breaking GPL license and copyrights on Fedora Core. In-Reply-To: <1224085619.3270.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <000601c92b0a$b5bc65a0$6500a8c0@Creo> <48EFCBC9.5060906@fedoraproject.org> <48EFCFF1.6020708@fedoraproject.org> <48F5F81A.10800@redhat.com> <48F5FF22.6000603@fedoraproject.org> <1224083017.3270.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <48F60704.1090809@fedoraproject.org> <48F60CAC.1070708@redhat.com> <1224085619.3270.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > Looks like they're distributing some source code. Are there specific > areas of concern? According to the website, the software requires activation and payment to use it beyond 30 days. My main concern was that this *may* run afoul of section 6 of GPLv3 if there's any GPLv3 licensed software in there, but IANAL and that language is sort of murky to me. Other than that, I'm not sure that there's any real concern. I'm downloading a copy of the software now to check for de-branding issues, etc. Will report back with findings. From jwboyer at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 16:51:32 2008 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:51:32 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: About breaking GPL license and copyrights on Fedora Core. In-Reply-To: References: <48EFCBC9.5060906@fedoraproject.org> <48EFCFF1.6020708@fedoraproject.org> <48F5F81A.10800@redhat.com> <48F5FF22.6000603@fedoraproject.org> <1224083017.3270.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <48F60704.1090809@fedoraproject.org> <48F60CAC.1070708@redhat.com> <1224085619.3270.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20081015165132.GC19156@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:49:07PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote: >On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > >> Looks like they're distributing some source code. Are there specific >> areas of concern? > >According to the website, the software requires activation and payment >to use it beyond 30 days. My main concern was that this *may* run >afoul of section 6 of GPLv3 if there's any GPLv3 licensed software in >there, but IANAL and that language is sort of murky to me. And why is that Fedora's concern? That would be linux-xp's violation, no? josh From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Oct 15 20:57:20 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:27:20 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: About breaking GPL license and copyrights on Fedora Core. In-Reply-To: <20081015165132.GC19156@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <48EFCBC9.5060906@fedoraproject.org> <48EFCFF1.6020708@fedoraproject.org> <48F5F81A.10800@redhat.com> <48F5FF22.6000603@fedoraproject.org> <1224083017.3270.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <48F60704.1090809@fedoraproject.org> <48F60CAC.1070708@redhat.com> <1224085619.3270.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20081015165132.GC19156@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <48F65930.3030609@fedoraproject.org> Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:49:07PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: >> >>> Looks like they're distributing some source code. Are there specific >>> areas of concern? >> According to the website, the software requires activation and payment >> to use it beyond 30 days. My main concern was that this *may* run >> afoul of section 6 of GPLv3 if there's any GPLv3 licensed software in >> there, but IANAL and that language is sort of murky to me. > > And why is that Fedora's concern? That would be linux-xp's violation, > no? If a derivative distribution is violating the licenses collectively, it is also misusing the work done within Fedora. That should make it our concern as well, I would think. Rahul From orcanbahri at yahoo.com Fri Oct 17 10:12:17 2008 From: orcanbahri at yahoo.com (Orcan Ogetbil) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 03:12:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] can we allow scummvm-tools? Message-ID: <777593.78340.qm@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi, I began reviewing this scummvm-tools package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467293 scummvm is an engine to run old games, mainly Lucasarts (then Lucasfilm) adventure flicks. Most of these games are now abandonware. As far as I know, scummvm also runs other games, some of which are now free. scummvm is distibuted by Fedora. On the other hand, scummvm-tools is a utility package. The only thing scummvm-tools does is to extract (and re-compress) data from these abandonware. Both scummvm and scummvm-tools come from the same project. I am not sure if we can package scummvm-tools in Fedora. I blocked FE-Legal but on a second thought I felt unsure whether this is an issue that needs to be dealt by FE-Legal. Can I get some help here? If not, whom should I ask? -oget __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tagoh at redhat.com Mon Oct 27 07:58:23 2008 From: tagoh at redhat.com (Akira TAGOH) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:58:23 +0900 (JST) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Hanazono fonts license Message-ID: <20081027.165823.742133724080462559.tagoh@redhat.com> Hi, I'm looking at Hanazono fonts[1] license to be packaging. that simply says: This font is a free software. Unlimited permission is granted to use, copy, and distribute it, with or without modification, either commercially and noncommercially. THIS FONT IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY. So what the license name should I use for spec file? TIA, -- Akira TAGOH [1] http://fonts.jp/hanazono/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Oct 27 13:41:46 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:41:46 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Hanazono fonts license In-Reply-To: <20081027.165823.742133724080462559.tagoh@redhat.com> References: <20081027.165823.742133724080462559.tagoh@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1225114906.3270.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 16:58 +0900, Akira TAGOH wrote: > Hi, > > I'm looking at Hanazono fonts[1] license to be > packaging. that simply says: > > This font is a free software. > Unlimited permission is granted to use, copy, and distribute > it, with or without modification, either commercially and > noncommercially. > THIS FONT IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY. > > > So what the license name should I use for spec file? License: Copyright only (This is one of the licenses where all rights are granted, but the copyright holder doesn't abandon copyright.) ~spot From tagoh at redhat.com Tue Oct 28 09:22:49 2008 From: tagoh at redhat.com (Akira TAGOH) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:22:49 +0900 (JST) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Hanazono fonts license In-Reply-To: <1225114906.3270.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20081027.165823.742133724080462559.tagoh@redhat.com> <1225114906.3270.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20081028.182249.379647938600080503.tagoh@redhat.com> >>>>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:41:46 -0400, >>>>> "TC" == "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: TC> On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 16:58 +0900, Akira TAGOH wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm looking at Hanazono fonts[1] license to be >> packaging. that simply says: >> >> This font is a free software. >> Unlimited permission is granted to use, copy, and distribute >> it, with or without modification, either commercially and >> noncommercially. >> THIS FONT IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY. >> >> >> So what the license name should I use for spec file? TC> License: Copyright only TC> (This is one of the licenses where all rights are granted, but the TC> copyright holder doesn't abandon copyright.) Sure. thanks. -- Akira TAGOH -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bkearney at redhat.com Thu Oct 30 17:52:13 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:52:13 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Amazon Software License Message-ID: <4909F44D.1020009@redhat.com> I would like to check the validity of the Amazon Software License for use in a package within Fedora. The text is below, with the original text taken from the zip flie in this page: http://developer.amazonwebservices.com/connect/entry.jspa?externalID=368&categoryID=88 Thank you! -- bk > Amazon Software License > > This Amazon Software License ("License") governs your use, reproduction, and > distribution of the accompanying software as specified below. > > 1. Definitions > > "Licensor" means any person or entity that distributes its Work. > > "Software" means the original work of authorship made available under this > License. > > "Work" means the Software and any additions to or derivative works of the > Software that are made available under this License. > > The terms "reproduce," "reproduction," "derivative works," and "distribution" > have the meaning as provided under U.S. copyright law; provided, however, that > for the purposes of this License, derivative works shall not include works that > remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, > the Work. > > Works, including the Software, are "made available" under this License by > including in or with the Work either (a) a copyright notice referencing the > applicability of this License to the Work, or (b) a copy of this License. > > 2. License Grants > > 2.1 Copyright Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each > Licensor grants to you a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, > copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, > publicly perform, sublicense and distribute its Work and any resulting > derivative works in any form. > > 2.2 Patent Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each > Licensor grants to you a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free > patent license to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and > otherwise transfer its Work, in whole or in part. The foregoing license applies > only to the patent claims licensable by Licensor that would be infringed by > Licensor's Work (or portion thereof) individually and excluding any > combinations with any other materials or technology. > > 3. Limitations > > 3.1 Redistribution. You may reproduce or distribute the Work only if (a) you do > so under this License, (b) you include a complete copy of this License with > your distribution, and (c) you retain without modification any copyright, > patent, trademark, or attribution notices that are present in the Work. > > 3.2 Derivative Works. You may specify that additional or different terms apply > to the use, reproduction, and distribution of your derivative works of the Work > ("Your Terms") only if (a) Your Terms provide that the use limitation in > Section 3.3 applies to your derivative works, and (b) you identify the specific > derivative works that are subject to Your Terms. Notwithstanding Your Terms, > this License (including the redistribution requirements in Section 3.1) will > continue to apply to the Work itself. > > 3.3 Use Limitation. The Work and any derivative works thereof only may be used > or intended for use with the web services, computing platforms or applications > provided by Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates, including Amazon Web Services > LLC. > > 3.4 Patent Claims. If you bring or threaten to bring a patent claim against any > Licensor (including any claim, cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) to > enforce any patents that you allege are infringed by any Work, then your rights > under this License from such Licensor (including the grants in Sections 2.1 and > 2.2) will terminate immediately. > > 3.5 Trademarks. This License does not grant any rights to use any Licensor's or > its affiliates' names, logos, or trademarks, except as necessary to reproduce > the notices described in this License. > > 3.6 Termination. If you violate any term of this License, then your rights > under this License (including the grants in Sections 2.1 and 2.2) will > terminate immediately. > > 4. Disclaimer of Warranty. THE WORK IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR > CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OR > CONDITIONS OF M ERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE OR > NON-INFRINGEMENT. YOU BEAR THE RISK OF UNDERTAKING ANY ACTIVITIES UNDER THIS > LICENSE. SOME STATES' CONSUMER LAWS DO NOT ALLOW EXCLUSION OF AN IMPLIED > WARRANTY, SO THIS DISCLAIMER MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. > > 5. Limitation of Liability. EXCEPT AS PROHIBITED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT > AND UNDER NO LEGAL THEORY, WHETHER IN TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), CONTRACT, OR > OTHERWISE SHALL ANY LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY > DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF > OR RELATED TO THIS LICENSE, THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE WORK (INCLUDING BUT > NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF GOODWILL, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOST PROFITS OR DATA, > COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION, OR ANY OTHER COMM ERCIAL DAMAGES OR LOSSES), > EVEN IF THE LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. > > > > [Note: Other license terms may apply to certain, identified software files > contained within or distributed with the accompanying software if such terms > are included in the notice folder accompanying the file. Such other license > terms will then apply in lieu of the terms of the Amazon Software License > above.] From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Oct 30 18:06:33 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:06:33 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Amazon Software License In-Reply-To: <4909F44D.1020009@redhat.com> References: <4909F44D.1020009@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1225389993.5204.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 13:52 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote: > I would like to check the validity of the Amazon Software License for > use in a package within Fedora. The text is below, with the original > text taken from the zip flie in this page: > > http://developer.amazonwebservices.com/connect/entry.jspa?externalID=368&categoryID=88 This license is non-free and non "open source", as a result of section 3.3 (it is a field of use limitation). Sorry. :( ~spot From bkearney at redhat.com Thu Oct 30 18:08:57 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:08:57 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Amazon Software License In-Reply-To: <1225389993.5204.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4909F44D.1020009@redhat.com> <1225389993.5204.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4909F839.7050107@redhat.com> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 13:52 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote: >> I would like to check the validity of the Amazon Software License for >> use in a package within Fedora. The text is below, with the original >> text taken from the zip flie in this page: >> >> http://developer.amazonwebservices.com/connect/entry.jspa?externalID=368&categoryID=88 > > This license is non-free and non "open source", as a result of section > 3.3 (it is a field of use limitation). > > Sorry. :( > > ~spot Thanks. Is that the only offending part? -- bk From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Oct 30 18:55:20 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:55:20 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Amazon Software License In-Reply-To: <4909F839.7050107@redhat.com> References: <4909F44D.1020009@redhat.com> <1225389993.5204.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4909F839.7050107@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1225392920.5204.67.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 14:08 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 13:52 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote: > >> I would like to check the validity of the Amazon Software License for > >> use in a package within Fedora. The text is below, with the original > >> text taken from the zip flie in this page: > >> > >> http://developer.amazonwebservices.com/connect/entry.jspa?externalID=368&categoryID=88 > > > > This license is non-free and non "open source", as a result of section > > 3.3 (it is a field of use limitation). > > > > Sorry. :( > > > > ~spot > > > Thanks. Is that the only offending part? It's the only one that I see on first pass, although, I reserve the right to re-review. :) ~spot From xjakub at fi.muni.cz Fri Oct 31 14:29:28 2008 From: xjakub at fi.muni.cz (Milos Jakubicek) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:29:28 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] specifying license in source code Message-ID: <490B1648.7070509@fi.muni.cz> Hi, I've submitted a review request (#461484) and have a couple of licensing issues there (quoting from BZ): >- from the licensing point of view, we have a small mess > a) lots of files have headers defining them as GPLv2+ (good) > b) headers of some other files specifu Public Domain as license (good > again) > c) however there are several files ( for instance > clients/threadtest.c and > many files under /lib ) which have no license specified. What reason > can we invoke in order to assume that they are like all the others, > Public Domain or GPLv2+ ? > In addition to that, the sourcefarge page of the project > (http://sourceforge.net/projects/twin/) claims that the project is > licensed as GPL and LGPL, but LGPL is only mentioned in the source > through the presence of the standard LGPL license file; I have not > been able to locate any other trace of it. Public Domain + GPLv2+ = no > problem, but the presence of files with no specific license make me > ask for help. Anyone more experienced in licensing willing to shed > some light ? 1) do I have to ask upstream to specify license in each file? 2) what license should this package be or do I have to ask upstream to clarify it? Thanks for any help, Milos Jakubicek From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Oct 31 15:58:30 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:58:30 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] specifying license in source code In-Reply-To: <490B1648.7070509@fi.muni.cz> References: <490B1648.7070509@fi.muni.cz> Message-ID: <1225468710.3467.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 15:29 +0100, Milos Jakubicek wrote: > 1) do I have to ask upstream to specify license in each > file? You really should, yes. > 2) what license should this package be or do I have to ask upstream to > clarify it? Given that upstream seems to think some files are under LGPL, but no files actually claim to be, it is worth asking them to clarify the situation. ~spot