On Monday, 26 January 2009 at 18:36, Bernard Johnson wrote:
> I need a ruling on whether tivodecode can be accepted into Fedora. It's
> currently submitted to rpmfusion, but Kevin Koffler thought it might be
> able to be accepted into Fedora proper.
>
> There were three things under considerati
On Thursday, 15 January 2009 at 00:52, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "DM" == Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski writes:
>
> DM> Am I mistaken? Is this licence acceptable for Fedora?
>
> The i
Hello.
As noted in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452584#c13 , mldonkey
appears to include a header file with a licence I wasn't able to identify.
My concern is that (if I'm reading it correctly) it doesn't grant explicit
permission to distribute derivative works, only "make and use"
On Tuesday, 04 November 2008 at 18:35, Steven Moix wrote:
> Hello fedora-legal people!
>
> I'd like to know if I'm allowed to talk about RPM Fusion in a news I'm
> going to send to the French press?
> We don't have software patents in Europe,
I'm afraid that's not entirely true. The EPO has grant
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 rea
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 li
