[Fedora-legal-list] Another list of potential issues
Hi I know there are differences in legal policies but there might be common problems as well. http://www.mail-archive.com/gnewsense-...@nongnu.org/msg00125.html Rahul ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware
On 04/30/2009 01:09 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: Not enough of a clue that I wrote: What if one piece of firmware is licensed under: For what it is worth, when you begin a sentence in English with: What if..., it is almost always a hypothetical scenario. Had you written: There is a case in the Linux 2.6.29rc3 kernel (drivers/foo/filename.c) where one piece of firmware is licensed under: It would have been much clearer. ~spot ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware
On 04/30/2009 01:09 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: Now, you don't have to report anything back to the list or to myself, but please don't fail to do your job just because you can't stand me. It's an important job, and the Fedora community counts on you to do it. As to this specific point, separated out specifically, I will repeat myself, perhaps a bit more clearly: Please point out any _specific_ cases of license issues in Fedora packages to me, bugzilla (FE-Legal), or this list, and I will look into them. When you do so, it greatly aids me when you are able to: * Specifically point out the precise issue * Note the affected files and package It took you several emails to accomplish this, and I just don't have enough time to chase ghost issues where your personal stance on licensing differs from Fedora's. I have a high degree of confidence at this point that you understand the definitions of Fedora licensing policies. When information is presented calmly, clearly, and without rhetoric, I continue to look into it. To assert that I am either failing, or at risk of failing in that task is rather insulting, especially given a lack of evidence in that area. It is also worth considering that the Linux kernel, like X.org and texlive, is a rather special case. We cannot simply remove the entire package without crippling the Fedora distributions, nor is it a place where we can effectively scalpel out licensing issues (I know that you disagree on this latter point, but for the purposes of rational discussion, please simply accept that Fedora is not interested in taking such action at this point in time). Our best recourse is to work with the upstream to address these issues. Progress continues to be made in this area. Keep in mind that it took us YEARS to get X.org to a state where we were no longer tangled up with non-free licenses. I tracked that issue personally for 5 years, Debian tracked it for even longer than that. It will likely take me months to finish simply auditing texlive. ~spot ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Another list of potential issues
On 04/30/2009 03:38 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi I know there are differences in legal policies but there might be common problems as well. http://www.mail-archive.com/gnewsense-...@nongnu.org/msg00125.html So, looking at that list: * afio: Yeah, we know about this one. Not in Fedora, caught it on review. * texlive-base, texlive-latex-base: Yes, we're aware of it, auditing it is a nightmare, but I plan to revisit it in earnest after Fedora 11. * libsnmp-base: This is net-snmp (In Lenny, this is 5.4.1, in Rawhide, we're at 5.4.2.1). This is about the MIB files derived from IETF RFCs. The license for IETF RFC docs says: This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. As the MIBs are clearly derivative works, they are available as derivative works that assist in the implementation of the various RFCs, without restriction of any kind. Unfortunately, the paragraph is confusingly worded, as they almost certainly mean for the document to mean the original RFC from which the work is derived. In addition, these MIB files are arguably in a gray area between Documentation, Code, and Content. I'm going to interpret them as Content, since they serve simply as reinterpretations of the published standard. It would be nice for the IETF to fix this, but as no obvious code is under these terms, it is less of a problem. * libsmi: Same issue as libsnmp. * pike: Not in Fedora. * gkrell-snmp: I don't think this is in Fedora, but it is resolved with upstream adding the OpenSSL exception clause in 1.1. ~spot ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Another list of potential issues
TC == Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com writes: TC pike: Not in Fedora. FYI, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459579 If there's an issue, could you add a comment there? - J ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Another list of potential issues
On 04/30/2009 10:26 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: TC == Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com writes: TC pike: Not in Fedora. FYI, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459579 If there's an issue, could you add a comment there? No issue, the concern from GNUsense is that pike had a bundled copy of Nettle, which includes one of the IETF RFC documents as a .txt file. I say had, because as of Nettle 1.15 and pike 7.8, the licensing issue on that file has been resolved. Assuming that ticket goes to pike 7.8 as requested, there should not be any issue. ~spot ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
