From vgaburici at gmail.com Thu Sep 4 19:11:58 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 22:11:58 +0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] A couple of license-relate questions Message-ID: 1) If some files of a program are BSD and some are GPLv2, is it necessary to include the BSD license file in the rpm package (even if upstream doesn't)? 2) Can someone take a look at the Adobe Glyph List license [http://www.adobe.com/devnet/opentype/archives/glyphlist.txt] and determine what is the appropriate rpm license field for it? If you want more context, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458430 Thanks, Vasile From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Sep 4 22:31:16 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:31:16 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: A couple of license-relate questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1220567476.7704.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 22:11 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > 1) If some files of a program are BSD and some are GPLv2, is it > necessary to include the BSD license file in the rpm package (even if > upstream doesn't)? We don't require that you add any missing license files in these scenarios. You might want to recommend that upstream include a copy of the license, but as long as the license appears in the source code, this is not required (for BSD). The rule is: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, must be included as documentation. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > 2) Can someone take a look at the Adobe Glyph List license > [http://www.adobe.com/devnet/opentype/archives/glyphlist.txt] and > determine what is the appropriate rpm license field for it? Need to run that one past the lawyers... it is worded strangely. ~spot From maxamillion at gmail.com Fri Sep 5 15:57:10 2008 From: maxamillion at gmail.com (Adam Miller) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:57:10 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] binclock license Message-ID: There is an application that I would like to package for Fedora called binclock, but I am having issues getting clarity on the license. Sourceforge lists it under the GPL on the project page, but the source code does not specify what version. I attempted to email the author but it appears his email address has changed as my email was returned by the mail server saying that the domain was invalid. The application source file from the author has a debian packaging directory that lists it as GPLv2 but since that is not specified in the source I wasn't sure if it was definitive enough. A copy of the source code is located here: http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/binclock_0.3.2-1.tar.gz And the source forge project page is located here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/binclock/ Thank you very much in advance for your input on the situation. -Adam -- http://maxamillion.googlepages.com --------------------------------------------------------- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Sep 5 17:43:34 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:43:34 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] binclock license In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1220636614.3451.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 10:57 -0500, Adam Miller wrote: > There is an application that I would like to package for Fedora called > binclock, but I am having issues getting clarity on the license. > Sourceforge lists it under the GPL on the project page, but the source > code does not specify what version. I attempted to email the author > but it appears his email address has changed as my email was returned > by the mail server saying that the domain was invalid. > > The application source file from the author has a debian packaging > directory that lists it as GPLv2 but since that is not specified in > the source I wasn't sure if it was definitive enough. > > A copy of the source code is located here: > http://maxamillion.fedorapeople.org/binclock_0.3.2-1.tar.gz > And the source forge project page is located here: > http://sourceforge.net/projects/binclock/ Given that the author wrote the "debian/copyright" file, we can take that as his intent. Use: License: GPLv2 ~spot From tibbs at math.uh.edu Fri Sep 5 17:51:07 2008 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: 05 Sep 2008 12:51:07 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] binclock license In-Reply-To: <1220636614.3451.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1220636614.3451.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: >>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway writes: TC> Given that the author wrote the "debian/copyright" file, we can TC> take that as his intent. Would it be possible to add a bit to the Licensing page or FAQ about determining intent in situations like this? Or it would simply be better to ask in each case? - J< From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Sep 5 19:07:37 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:07:37 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] binclock license In-Reply-To: References: <1220636614.3451.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1220641657.3451.53.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 12:51 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway writes: > > TC> Given that the author wrote the "debian/copyright" file, we can > TC> take that as his intent. > > Would it be possible to add a bit to the Licensing page or FAQ about > determining intent in situations like this? Or it would simply be > better to ask in each case? Unfortunately, I think we want to case-by-case this. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Sat Sep 6 18:34:59 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:34:59 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: A couple of license-relate questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1220726099.16460.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 22:11 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > 2) Can someone take a look at the Adobe Glyph List license > [http://www.adobe.com/devnet/opentype/archives/glyphlist.txt] and > determine what is the appropriate rpm license field for it? License: MIT Its a screwed up variant, but the end result is the same. ~spot From vgaburici at gmail.com Sat Sep 6 19:59:26 2008 From: vgaburici at gmail.com (Vasile Gaburici) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 22:59:26 +0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: A couple of license-relate questions In-Reply-To: <1220726099.16460.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1220726099.16460.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: Interesting outcome. Does that mean I don't have to mention it at if it's included in a GPLv2 package? As a footnote, Werner Lemberg asked Eddie Kohler a while back to remove his (that is Eddie's) changes from the file because of the "No modification, editing or other alteration of this document is allowed" clause in the license. They, meaning Adobe, seem to contradict themselves later on with: # Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a # copy of this documentation file, to create their own derivative works # from the content of this document to use, copy, publish, distribute, # sublicense, and/or sell the derivative works, and to permit others to do # the same, provided that the derived work is not represented as being a # copy or version of this document. which allows modifications as long as you don't attribute them to Adobe. So Eddie can change it, but has to call it "Eddie's glyph list". LOL. On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 22:11 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: >> 2) Can someone take a look at the Adobe Glyph List license >> [http://www.adobe.com/devnet/opentype/archives/glyphlist.txt] and >> determine what is the appropriate rpm license field for it? > > License: MIT > > Its a screwed up variant, but the end result is the same. > > ~spot > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-legal-list mailing list > Fedora-legal-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list > From michel.sylvan at gmail.com Sun Sep 7 06:57:07 2008 From: michel.sylvan at gmail.com (Michel Salim) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 02:57:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora not "free" enough for GNU? Message-ID: I was just over at gnu.org to download the anniversary video recorded by Stephen Fry, and while I was there decided to take a look at what systems they recommend as being free. They list BLAG, which is based on Fedora. But Fedora itself (and Debian) is not there! http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions This struck me as rather strange, especially considering their guidelines are actually based on Fedora's (and we are thanked for it): http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html As far as I remember, Rahul Sundaram was talking to the GNU / FSF people about this quite a while back. Is it just the difference over binary-only firmware that's consigning us to the "non-free" heap? Regards, -- Michel Salim http://hircus.jaiku.com/ From konrad at tylerc.org Sun Sep 7 23:45:15 2008 From: konrad at tylerc.org (Conrad Meyer) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:45:15 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Metasploit Framework License (Is it ok for Fedora?) Message-ID: <200809071645.16017.konrad@tylerc.org> Is this license ok for a package in Fedora (i.e. metasploit)? The full text can be found here[0]. [0]: http://metasploit.com/svn/framework3/trunk/documentation/LICENSE PS: I'm not subscribed to fedora-legal so please CC replies to me. Regards, -- Conrad Meyer From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Sep 8 09:26:50 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:56:50 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora not "free" enough for GNU? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48C4EFDA.1060200@fedoraproject.org> Michel Salim wrote: > I was just over at gnu.org to download the anniversary video recorded > by Stephen Fry, and while I was there decided to take a look at what > systems they recommend as being free. > > They list BLAG, which is based on Fedora. But Fedora itself (and > Debian) is not there! > > http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions > > This struck me as rather strange, especially considering their > guidelines are actually based on Fedora's (and we are thanked for it): > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html > > As far as I remember, Rahul Sundaram was talking to the GNU / FSF > people about this quite a while back. Is it just the difference over > binary-only firmware that's consigning us to the "non-free" heap? Basically, yes. I posted the last status on http://lwn.net/Articles/282771/ David Woodhouse initiated a effort to remove firmware into a separate archive. While that work is still in progress, you can see that kernel-firmware is a separate package in rawhide already. While there are other advantages, it allows people who don't want such firmware packages installed for philosophical reasons to easily remove them. A separate spin is easier now as well. Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Sep 8 11:47:18 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:47:18 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Metasploit Framework License (Is it ok for Fedora?) In-Reply-To: <200809071645.16017.konrad@tylerc.org> References: <200809071645.16017.konrad@tylerc.org> Message-ID: <1220874439.2775.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2008-09-07 at 16:45 -0700, Conrad Meyer wrote: > Is this license ok for a package in Fedora (i.e. metasploit)? The full text > can be found here[0]. > > [0]: http://metasploit.com/svn/framework3/trunk/documentation/LICENSE > > PS: I'm not subscribed to fedora-legal so please CC replies to me. Sorry, that license is non-free. ~spot From goeran at uddeborg.se Mon Sep 8 15:42:02 2008 From: goeran at uddeborg.se (=?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6ran?= Uddeborg) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:42:02 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ttf2pt1 license In-Reply-To: <200809071645.16017.konrad@tylerc.org> References: <200809071645.16017.konrad@tylerc.org> Message-ID: <18629.18378.797734.904929@gargle.gargle.HOWL> I'm learning how to package RPM:s according to the Fedora rules, and have come to the license. My first package, ttf2pt1, has a home-brewn variant of the BSD license, which I attach. A few individual files in the package have different licenses. In some case it's GPLv2+ licensed, but some scripts have a separate short license which I also attach. I understand that I should ask here if 1) it is ok to package this program, and 2) what to use in the License tag value. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: COPYRIGHT URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: otherlicense.text URL: From stickster at gmail.com Mon Sep 8 15:49:45 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:49:45 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: using public domain documents in fedorahosted projects In-Reply-To: <95f1114b0809071455t18e9ea2scb7d2689df72dce5@mail.gmail.com> References: <95f1114b0809071455t18e9ea2scb7d2689df72dce5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1220888985.15677.197.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 07:55 +1000, Murray McAllister wrote: > Hi, > > states: > > '7. Should you wish to submit work that is not your original creation, > you may submit it to the Project separately from any Contribution, > identifying the complete details of its source and of any license or > other restriction (including, but not limited to, related patents, > trademarks, and license agreements) of which you are personally aware, > and conspicuously marking the work as "Submitted on behalf of a > third-party: [named here] ". ' > > Does this apply to fedorahosted projects as well? Does this mean I can > not use/copy+paste text from a public domain document (even if it is > cited) if it is going to be stored on fedorahosted? This probably belongs on fedora-legal-list; moving the discussion there. Certainly there is nothing actually *barring* you from submitting a public domain work, and the CLA is not intended to do that either. I think the intent of this paragraph is to ensure contributors meet their obligations when submitting work that has some sort of restrictive license attached, and the contributor isn't also copyright holder. We are working on a draft for a new and clearer CLA, so if nothing else this is a point we should be addressing therein. -- Paul W. Frields ("IANAL, TINLA, blah blah blah.") gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Sep 8 17:29:53 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:29:53 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ttf2pt1 license In-Reply-To: <18629.18378.797734.904929@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <200809071645.16017.konrad@tylerc.org> <18629.18378.797734.904929@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: <1220894993.5702.159.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 17:42 +0200, G?ran Uddeborg wrote: > I'm learning how to package RPM:s according to the Fedora rules, and > have come to the license. My first package, ttf2pt1, has a home-brewn > variant of the BSD license, which I attach. > > A few individual files in the package have different licenses. In > some case it's GPLv2+ licensed, but some scripts have a separate short > license which I also attach. > > I understand that I should ask here if 1) it is ok to package this > program, and 2) what to use in the License tag value. So, the problem here is that the BSD license has the advertising clause, which makes it incompatible with GPL. You will need to get the copyright holders of the code under that BSD license to drop the advertising clause. I'd strongly suggest trying to work with upstream for this. ~spot From goeran at uddeborg.se Mon Sep 8 18:23:40 2008 From: goeran at uddeborg.se (=?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6ran?= Uddeborg) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 20:23:40 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ttf2pt1 license In-Reply-To: <1220894993.5702.159.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200809071645.16017.konrad@tylerc.org> <18629.18378.797734.904929@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <1220894993.5702.159.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <18629.28076.271935.525700@gargle.gargle.HOWL> "Tom "spot" Callaway" writes: > So, the problem here is that the BSD license has the advertising clause, > which makes it incompatible with GPL. You will need to get the copyright > holders of the code under that BSD license to drop the advertising > clause. I'd strongly suggest trying to work with upstream for this. I see. I was mostly wondering about the BSD-like licenses not being exactly BSD. I didn't think about this aspect. I will contact the developers, but I fear this might take a while. ttf2pt1 isn't very actively developed. (Latest release from 2003. Let's call it "mature".) The script with a GPL license isn't really used by the main program. It is from a separate developer and merely bundled together in the tar archive for some user's convenience. (And might only be useful on SUSE anyway, according to the comments.) Could I avoid this problem by not including these scripts in the package instead? ttf2pt1 proper would not loose anything. Or would this not help, since the SRPM would include the tar archive where the different files are bundled? From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Sep 8 20:01:54 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:01:54 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ttf2pt1 license In-Reply-To: <18629.28076.271935.525700@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <200809071645.16017.konrad@tylerc.org> <18629.18378.797734.904929@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <1220894993.5702.159.camel@localhost.localdomain> <18629.28076.271935.525700@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: <1220904114.5702.598.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 20:23 +0200, G?ran Uddeborg wrote: > Could I avoid this problem by not including these scripts in the > package instead? Absolutely. In that case, just mark the package as: License: BSD with advertising ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Sep 9 23:07:27 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:07:27 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Metasploit Framework License (Is it ok for Fedora?) In-Reply-To: <200809091537.00011.konrad@tylerc.org> References: <200809091537.00011.konrad@tylerc.org> Message-ID: <1221001647.5847.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 15:36 -0700, Conrad Meyer wrote: > Is this license ok for a package in Fedora (i.e. metasploit)? The full text > can be found here[0]. > > [0]: http://metasploit.com/svn/framework3/trunk/documentation/LICENSE > > PS: I'm not subscribed to fedora-legal so please CC replies to me. Not sure why you didn't see this the first time, but the answer is no. That license is non-free, and thus, not okay for Fedora. ~spot From konrad at tylerc.org Tue Sep 9 22:36:59 2008 From: konrad at tylerc.org (Conrad Meyer) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:36:59 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Metasploit Framework License (Is it ok for Fedora?) Message-ID: <200809091537.00011.konrad@tylerc.org> Is this license ok for a package in Fedora (i.e. metasploit)? The full text can be found here[0]. [0]: http://metasploit.com/svn/framework3/trunk/documentation/LICENSE PS: I'm not subscribed to fedora-legal so please CC replies to me. Regards, -- Conrad Meyer From louizatakk at gmail.com Thu Sep 11 08:36:31 2008 From: louizatakk at gmail.com (~ louiz' ~) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:36:31 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Teeworlds License Message-ID: <41588e7c0809110136p639b110bj9a3f9c227093c346@mail.gmail.com> (this message may already have been posted, if it has, I apologize) hi, I wanted to propose a package for the teeworlds game, but the problem is that the license may not be suitable for fedora. In fact, problems are that it's a no-name license (so I don't know how to name it in the spec file, but it's a detail), AND that it's really unclear. Here it is : http://teeworlds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=957 A discussion about this license takes place in this page, here is a little summary: - according to the main dev: in point 4, "as itself" means that it can be sold (as a part of a distribution, or a magazine, or a software compilation, but NOT ON ITS OWN) - also according to the main dev: this license was discussed with a fedora-legal person... ("This license was discussed in great length and input were taken from some fedora legal guy (can't remember the name).") (read the discussion for more details) So, my question is: is this license Free (I think it is, but I wanted an expert advice) and this software can be included in fedora ? If not, what exactly make this license non-free ? If yes, how should I name this license (for the package) ? Thank you, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Sep 11 12:32:05 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:32:05 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Teeworlds License In-Reply-To: <41588e7c0809110136p639b110bj9a3f9c227093c346@mail.gmail.com> References: <41588e7c0809110136p639b110bj9a3f9c227093c346@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1221136325.22869.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 01:36 -0700, ~ louiz' ~ wrote: > So, my question is: is this license Free (I think it is, but I wanted > an > expert advice) and this software can be included in fedora ? > If not, what exactly make this license non-free ? > If yes, how should I name this license (for the package) ? This one is right on the line. I'm discussing it with RH Legal (and the Teeworlds copyright holder) now. ~spot From sflaniga at redhat.com Fri Sep 12 06:44:20 2008 From: sflaniga at redhat.com (Sean Flanigan) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:44:20 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Add "GPL + Classpath Exception" to the Good Licences list? Message-ID: <48CA0FC4.7050408@redhat.com> Since IcedTea/OpenJDK is part of Fedora 9, I presume that GPL + Classpath Exception is a good licence, but I can't find it in the list here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses -- Sean Flanigan Senior Software Engineer Engineering - Internationalisation Red Hat -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 551 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Sep 12 14:48:09 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:48:09 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Add "GPL + Classpath Exception" to the Good Licences list? In-Reply-To: <48CA0FC4.7050408@redhat.com> References: <48CA0FC4.7050408@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1221230889.14378.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 16:44 +1000, Sean Flanigan wrote: > Since IcedTea/OpenJDK is part of Fedora 9, I presume that GPL + > Classpath Exception is a good licence, but I can't find it in the list here: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses Yes, it's fine. Just use: License: GPLv2 with exceptions (where GPLv2 is the correct version of GPL) ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Sat Sep 13 13:28:19 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:28:19 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Teeworlds License In-Reply-To: <41588e7c0809110136p639b110bj9a3f9c227093c346@mail.gmail.com> References: <41588e7c0809110136p639b110bj9a3f9c227093c346@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1221312499.23099.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 01:36 -0700, ~ louiz' ~ wrote: > So, my question is: is this license Free Yes, but only when it is used by the Teeworlds copyright holders. This is because we have a clear statement of their intent around clause 4 of the license. Use: License: Teeworlds ~spot From goeran at uddeborg.se Sun Sep 14 15:11:28 2008 From: goeran at uddeborg.se (=?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6ran?= Uddeborg) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:11:28 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ttf2pt1 license In-Reply-To: <1220894993.5702.159.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200809071645.16017.konrad@tylerc.org> <18629.18378.797734.904929@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <1220894993.5702.159.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <18637.10656.909336.906505@gargle.gargle.HOWL> "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" writes: > So, the problem here is that the BSD license has the advertising clause, > which makes it incompatible with GPL. > I'd strongly suggest trying to work with upstream for this. I brought the issue up on the ttf2pt1 mailing list. (You can see parts of the communication at http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=ttf2pt1-users&max_rows=25&style=nested&viewmonth=200809 but some mails were sent off list too.) The project does not seem to think there is a problem. As I understand it because the GPL scripts are not really part of the BSD-licensed ttf2pt1 itself. It is only an "aggregate" in the GPL terms. To express it a bit better, here are a few cuts from the README for the contributed GPL scripts: The tiny Perl-script 'sfd2map' converts .sfd files (as used by CJK-LaTeX) to .map files (as used by ttf2pt1). ... ... another small script 'cjk-latex-config' ... which creates .tfm files usable with CJK-LaTeX from TrueType fonts as listed in /etc/ttf2pk/ttfonts.map. When called like cjk-latex-config --type1 this script will use ttf2pt1 to generate .pfb files as well from these TrueType fonts to be used with CJK-LaTeX. So a script may call the ttf2pt1 program, but otherwise they just produce data for each other. Would you agree that the packaging of these scripts together with ttf2pt1 proper be legal according to the license? Or should I exclude them from the package anyway? (It doesn't matter to me personally, I don't understand CJK characters anyway. :-) But I guess there are people out there who could have a use for these scripts.) From tcallawa at redhat.com Sun Sep 14 16:51:04 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:51:04 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ttf2pt1 license In-Reply-To: <18637.10656.909336.906505@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <200809071645.16017.konrad@tylerc.org> <18629.18378.797734.904929@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <1220894993.5702.159.camel@localhost.localdomain> <18637.10656.909336.906505@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: <1221411064.9991.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2008-09-14 at 17:11 +0200, G?ran Uddeborg wrote: > Would you agree that the packaging of these scripts together with > ttf2pt1 proper be legal according to the license? Or should I exclude > them from the package anyway? So, given the context, I would agree. GPLv2 says: In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License It really does depend on the situation, are these scripts part of the "Program" or simply aggregated along with the "Program"? Given your description, it seems like they are just included for convenience. You can include them in the package if you want, and if you do, note them in the license tag like this: License: GPLv2+ and BSD with advertising Nevertheless, I would _still_ encourage upstream to drop the advertising clause, just to clear up the issue entirely. You should point out to them that the original BSD Author (University of Berkeley) has dropped the clause (for all items which they are the copyright holder), and ask them if they are willing to do the same (if they're the copyright holder for those scripts). See: ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change ~spot From goeran at uddeborg.se Mon Sep 15 15:51:58 2008 From: goeran at uddeborg.se (=?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6ran?= Uddeborg) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:51:58 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ttf2pt1 license In-Reply-To: <1221411064.9991.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200809071645.16017.konrad@tylerc.org> <18629.18378.797734.904929@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <1220894993.5702.159.camel@localhost.localdomain> <18637.10656.909336.906505@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <1221411064.9991.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <18638.33950.820789.142417@gargle.gargle.HOWL> "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" writes: > Nevertheless, I would _still_ encourage upstream to drop the advertising > clause, just to clear up the issue entirely. Makes sense to me. I'll forward your suggestion. From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Sep 15 17:55:33 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:55:33 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: A couple of license-relate questions In-Reply-To: References: <1220726099.16460.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1221501333.29052.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2008-09-06 at 22:59 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: > Interesting outcome. Does that mean I don't have to mention it at if > it's included in a GPLv2 package? Ehh, I would lean on the safe side and list it in the tag. Apologies for the delayed response. ~spot From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Thu Sep 18 15:11:51 2008 From: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mamoru Tasaka) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:11:51 +0900 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 BR Message-ID: <48D26FB7.6050205@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Hello. Now I am trying to review bug 443238. In the source tarball one JPG file is licensed under: "Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 BR" (not 3.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/br/ Can I use "CC-BY" license tag for this license? Regards, Mamoru From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Sep 18 15:18:50 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:18:50 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 BR In-Reply-To: <48D26FB7.6050205@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> References: <48D26FB7.6050205@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Message-ID: <1221751130.3574.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 00:11 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > Hello. > > Now I am trying to review bug 443238. > In the source tarball one JPG file is licensed under: > "Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 BR" (not 3.0): > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/br/ > > Can I use "CC-BY" license tag for this license? Yes. ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Sep 19 19:23:14 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:53:14 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] SGI Further Opens its OpenGL Contributions Message-ID: <48D3FC22.9080502@fedoraproject.org> Hi, I think this is relevant here. http://lwn.net/Articles/299429/ "SGI has announced it is releasing a new version of the SGI Free Software License B. The license, which now mirrors the free X11 license used by X.Org, further opens previously released SGI graphics software, including the SGI OpenGL Sample Implementation, the GLX API and other GLX extensions." Rahul From jwboyer at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 19:28:06 2008 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:28:06 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] SGI Further Opens its OpenGL Contributions In-Reply-To: <48D3FC22.9080502@fedoraproject.org> References: <48D3FC22.9080502@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20080919192806.GA4796@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 12:53:14AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi, > > I think this is relevant here. > > http://lwn.net/Articles/299429/ > > "SGI has announced it is releasing a new version of the SGI Free > Software License B. The license, which now mirrors the free X11 license > used by X.Org, further opens previously released SGI graphics software, > including the SGI OpenGL Sample Implementation, the GLX API and other > GLX extensions." Thanks for the link. Is there a conversation you wanted to start with it? josh From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Sep 19 19:36:24 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 01:06:24 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] SGI Further Opens its OpenGL Contributions In-Reply-To: <20080919192806.GA4796@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <48D3FC22.9080502@fedoraproject.org> <20080919192806.GA4796@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <48D3FF38.2040200@fedoraproject.org> Josh Boyer wrote: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 12:53:14AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I think this is relevant here. >> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/299429/ >> >> "SGI has announced it is releasing a new version of the SGI Free >> Software License B. The license, which now mirrors the free X11 license >> used by X.Org, further opens previously released SGI graphics software, >> including the SGI OpenGL Sample Implementation, the GLX API and other >> GLX extensions." > > Thanks for the link. Is there a conversation you wanted to start with it? Nope. We had the conversations already. This is a followup. Rahul From atorkhov at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 16:22:51 2008 From: atorkhov at gmail.com (Alexey Torkhov) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:22:51 +0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] SGI Further Opens its OpenGL Contributions In-Reply-To: <48D3FC22.9080502@fedoraproject.org> References: <48D3FC22.9080502@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1221927771.4424.5.camel@alex.tortilla.ru> Hi. Rahul Sundaram wrote: > http://lwn.net/Articles/299429/ > > "SGI has announced it is releasing a new version of the SGI Free > Software License B. The license, which now mirrors the free X11 license > used by X.Org, further opens previously released SGI graphics software, > including the SGI OpenGL Sample Implementation, the GLX API and other > GLX extensions." So, this means that software under SGI Free Software License B is now acceptable in Fedora, right? What License field should be used for it then? Alexey. From kanarip at kanarip.com Sun Sep 21 01:25:45 2008 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 03:25:45 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Orange Sombrero 9 Released - based on Fedora Message-ID: <48D5A299.6000908@kanarip.com> One more Software Freedom Day well spent ;-) I'm proud to announce a new minor player in the world of insignificant clones of major, important Free and Open Source Linux Distributions, *bling* Orange Sombrero - /based on Fedora/ *bling* Orange Sombrero starts with releasing version number 9 - the same version number as the upstream distribution, Fedora, to avoid confusion. Has anything been changed? Yeah, a patch to anaconda[1,2] that didn't make it in in time for the Fedora 10 Beta freeze has been applied to compose this release -which is sort of the entire use case behind the patch anyway. Also, a different branch of Revisor has been used that uses the patch to anaconda[3]. Since I've got limited bandwidth and disk space, this is a 1 CD distribution. If I had bandwidth and disk space, I might have thrown in a mid-release Everything Spin but I couldn't. Also, given that this is a 1 CD distribution, I've added an install class to anaconda so that it selects the correct groups of packages. Who needs "Office & Productivity" if there's only @core and @base, right? "Base System" FTW! It was fun, it took me 4 koji scratch builds of anaconda and another number of composes to get it "right". Note that despite these changes the installed system will behave just the same as Fedora. In fact, if you look really hard, there's the occasional "Fedora" in there, still -maybe that's because I used fedora-release, which I should be able to do without trademark violations, even though /etc/fedora-release still says "Fedora" ;-) Why bother? Trademark guidelines right now say a derivative distribution cannot use "based on Fedora" -which is bad, and Orange Sombrero is now raising some red flags about it. Work is well on it's way to improve that situation[4] though, for which I thank everyone involved. I hope soon, very soon, derivative's of Fedora pop up everywhere, like mushrooms in autumn. Where is it? http://orangesombrero.org (torrents) On behalf of the entire Orange Sombrero Community (e.g. ~1 person), Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip [1] http://tinyurl.com/49eq5n [2] http://tinyurl.com/47v38s [3] http://tinyurl.com/4le262 [4] http://tinyurl.com/6d3ykf From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Sep 22 14:39:18 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:39:18 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] SGI Further Opens its OpenGL Contributions In-Reply-To: <1221927771.4424.5.camel@alex.tortilla.ru> References: <48D3FC22.9080502@fedoraproject.org> <1221927771.4424.5.camel@alex.tortilla.ru> Message-ID: <1222094358.3555.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 20:22 +0400, Alexey Torkhov wrote: > Hi. > > Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > http://lwn.net/Articles/299429/ > > > > "SGI has announced it is releasing a new version of the SGI Free > > Software License B. The license, which now mirrors the free X11 license > > used by X.Org, further opens previously released SGI graphics software, > > including the SGI OpenGL Sample Implementation, the GLX API and other > > GLX extensions." > > So, this means that software under SGI Free Software License B is now > acceptable in Fedora, right? > > What License field should be used for it then? License: MIT ~spot From atorkhov at gmail.com Mon Sep 22 15:48:05 2008 From: atorkhov at gmail.com (Alexey Torkhov) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:48:05 +0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] SGI Further Opens its OpenGL Contributions In-Reply-To: <1222094358.3555.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <48D3FC22.9080502@fedoraproject.org> <1221927771.4424.5.camel@alex.tortilla.ru> <1222094358.3555.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1222098485.3609.1.camel@alex.tortilla.ru> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 20:22 +0400, Alexey Torkhov wrote: > > Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/299429/ > > > > > > "SGI has announced it is releasing a new version of the SGI Free > > > Software License B. The license, which now mirrors the free X11 license > > > used by X.Org, further opens previously released SGI graphics software, > > > including the SGI OpenGL Sample Implementation, the GLX API and other > > > GLX extensions." > > > > So, this means that software under SGI Free Software License B is now > > acceptable in Fedora, right? > > > > What License field should be used for it then? > > License: MIT Thanks. -- Alexey Torkhov From simon at w3sp.de Mon Sep 29 12:33:24 2008 From: simon at w3sp.de (Simon Wesp) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:33:24 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] license for apt-mirror Message-ID: <20080929143324.043e947a@schafwiese> Hi, i started a package review request for "apt mirror" a apt sources mirroring tool. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464308 I took the GPLv2 license tag from the debian package, because i found no informations about license in the source or on the homepage. the first debianisation was with version 0.3.0 and the package author (the same as the upstream author) declare the license as gplv2. he is still the debian maintainer of this package and the license never changed. copyright information from package 0.3.0: - This package was debianized by Dmitry N. Hramtsov on Sat, 27 Jul 2002 12:44:33 +0700. It was downloaded from http://apt-mirror.sourceforge.net/ Upstream Author(s): Dmitry N. Hramtsov Copyright: GPLv2 - copyright information of 0.4.5 (current version) http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/apt-mirror/apt-mirror_0.4.5-1/apt-mirror.copyright what should i do? -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en aus dem sch?nen Hainzell Simon Wesp -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Sep 29 13:35:08 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:35:08 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] license for apt-mirror In-Reply-To: <20080929143324.043e947a@schafwiese> References: <20080929143324.043e947a@schafwiese> Message-ID: <1222695308.4087.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 14:33 +0200, Simon Wesp wrote: > Hi, > > i started a package review request for "apt mirror" a apt sources mirroring tool. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464308 > > I took the GPLv2 license tag from the debian package, because i found no informations about license in the source or on the homepage. > > the first debianisation was with version 0.3.0 and the package author (the same as the upstream author) declare the license as gplv2. he is still the debian maintainer of this package and the license never changed. > > copyright information from package 0.3.0: > - > This package was debianized by Dmitry N. Hramtsov on > Sat, 27 Jul 2002 12:44:33 +0700. > > It was downloaded from http://apt-mirror.sourceforge.net/ > > Upstream Author(s): Dmitry N. Hramtsov Email the upstream author, point out that his code doesn't have any licensing, and ask him to: A) Please confirm the license of the source code B) Please add the licensing information to the code tarball ~spot