- openSUSE Bar

[Fwd: [opensuse-factory] [Bug 847971] Chromium from openSUSE has MP3/MP4 support]
by Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger 22 Nov '13

22 Nov '13

Dear Legal team, as I'm not sure if you follow -factory (and how closely), I dare to forward you this mail. It seems very much like one of the topics you should be involved. In short: chromium plays MP3 and MP4 files 'out of the box' in openSUSE 13.1. -------- Forwarded Message -------- > From: Ignacio Areta <areta(a)outlook.com.br> > To: opensuse-factory(a)opensuse.org <opensuse-factory(a)opensuse.org> > Subject: [opensuse-factory] [Bug 847971] Chromium from openSUSE has > MP3/MP4 support > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:59:10 -0200 > > Hello list, > > I'm writing to this list because of a request of Chromium's mantainer. > > For some reason, Chromium and chromium-ffmpegsumo from openSUSE have MP3 and MP4 support. The reporter of that bug and I reproduced a MP4 video with sucess, and I reproduced a MP3 audio with success. We're only using chromium-ffmpegsumo from openSUSE (not chromium-ffmpeg from Packman). But it appears the mantainer (Raymond Wooninck) didn't understand what's happening. See the bug: > bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847971 > > So, I'd like your help to conffirm if this bug is valid and what can be done in this case. Or is it fine to Chromium reproducing MP3 and MP4 using the chromium-ffmpegsumo from openSUSE? > > Cheers, > Ignacio -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org > To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org > -- Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger <dimstar(a)opensuse.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-bar+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-bar+owner(a)opensuse.org

1 0

nmap
by Andreas Stieger 31 Aug '13

31 Aug '13

Hello, what's your take on the recent nmap licence change? The package is currently at GPL-2.0+ https://svn.nmap.org/nmap/COPYING. Mentioned in http://nmap.org/changelog.html: Updated the Nmap license agreement to close some loopholes and stop some abusers. It's particularly targeted at companies which distribute malware-laden Nmap installers as we caught download.com doing last year-- http://insecure.org/news/download-com-fiasco.html. The updated license is in the all the normal places, including https://svn.nmap.org/nmap/COPYING. I sent this for review to the legal team already: https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/195643 Fedora has the following: # nmap is GPLv2 # zenmap is GPLv2 and LGPLv2+ (zenmap/higwidgets) and GPLv2+ (zenmap/radialnet) # libdnet-stripped is BSD (advertising clause rescinded by the Univ. of California in 1999) with some parts as Public Domain (crc32) # openssl is OpenSSL # openssl and libdnet-striped is removed in %%prep section Thanks, Andreas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-bar+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-bar+owner(a)opensuse.org

1 0

Darktable license issues
by toganm＠opensuse.org 10 Jun '13

10 Jun '13

Hi, Recently there has been some issues regarding darktable package. There is a bug report at fedora related to this. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972604 The libraw vulnerability is addressed yet other issues regarding license is beyond my understanding, hence would you please to comment. Please CC as I am not subscribed to the list. Thanks -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-bar+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-bar+owner(a)opensuse.org

1 0

Fwd: Re: [opensuse-factory] license questions
by Jürgen Weigert 01 May '13

01 May '13

Fyi -------- Original Message -------- From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh(a)inai.de> Sent: Tue Apr 30 14:18:14 GMT+02:00 2013 To: Joop Boonen <joop.boonen(a)boonen.org> Cc: opensuse-factory(a)opensuse.org Subject: Re: [opensuse-factory] license questions On Friday 2013-04-26 11:38, Joop Boonen wrote: > > Another project with a a non existing spdx license is games micropolis. This > project has a GPL-3.0+ with ADDITIONAL TERMS per GNU GPL Section 7 ( > http://www.donhopkins.com/home/micropolis/ ) > > Does anyone know what license should be used? Trademark considerations pretty much apply anytime anyway for any package. The extra section is gratitious information which may help the user to find a conclusion to the question "can the name «XYZ» be used for a Metropolis-derived software?" faster. "GPL-3.0+" for the .spec file's License: field should be sufficient IMO. If not, the legal team will tell you when submitting to Factory. (Remarks: I am not part of the legal group.) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

1 0

oracle-instantclient
by Boris Manojlovic 04 Mar '13

04 Mar '13

Hello, after searching on OBS for oracle-instantclient i have found few in home repositories and few in official repositories (devel:languages:misc and in devel:languages:ruby:extensions probably linked to same). What is our stance about it, should it be moved into :Non-free (i think it should) Here is license agreement: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/licenses/instant-client-lic-152016.html as I'm not lawyer i cannot say 100% it is allowed to redistribute it trough service like OBS but it looks like they allow it with standard exceptions of not allowing reverse eng and like. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-bar+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-bar+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 1

Re: [opensuse-buildservice] who removed steam from games: and why?
by Juergen Weigert 14 Jan '13

14 Jan '13

On Jan 14, 13 13:48:34 +0100, Stephan Kulow wrote: > > Is there any standard procedure for this? like: > > > > 1. Do I have to receive a written permission or oral permission? > It for sure needs to be something that can be verified. But we have tons > of cases in our packages, where an email from the author to clarify the > license was enough for passing legal review. This won't happen with > Oracle, we won't believe emails "From: Larry" to be legit. > > > > > 2. If it's a written permission, what terms/keywords should it > > contain? eg: "I, (XXX), the owner of XXX, agree marguerite to > > distribute my software XXX with openSUSE" or just "I received your > > email, just go ahead please." > I'm not a lawyer. A good approach (imho) is to head for a well known and public license, *especially* if upstream folks do not come up with a license themselves. "Hello Upstream. We at openSUSE would like to include your package XXX under License YYY in our next distribution. Is that okay with you?" Which license to suggest, is mostly guesswork. I'd try MIT, CC-BY-3.0, GPL-2.0+, CC-SA-3.0 not necessarily in that order. If many dependencies are under the same license, then suggest this one. I'm not a layer either, but that is what I successfully did a several times in the past. CC-ing the legal team. cheers, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw(a)suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 say #263A!__/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, J.Guild, F.Imendoerffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg), Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany SuSE. Supporting Linux since 1992. ☺ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-bar+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-bar+owner(a)opensuse.org

1 0

legal things about multimedia
by Guillaume Gardet 23 Nov '12

23 Nov '12

Hi, I would like to package multimedia things (XBMC, FFMPEG, etc.) for openSUSE, and get it in OBS. Which formats are OK or implies legal issues? I need to know in order to use the right configure options. Regards, Guillaume -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-bar+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-bar+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 2

BSD or public domain
by Togan Muftuoglu 04 Oct '12

04 Oct '12

Hi, I am preparing sbcl from devel:languages:misc project for Factory submission and I am not sure if the package should be BSD-2Clause or public domain or maybe a SUSE vaiant of these. The web page of the sbcl http://www.sbcl.org/history.html> describes itself as follows """ SBCL is derived from CMU CL, and carries the same licensing terms, a mixture of BSD-style (for a few subsystems) and public domain (for the rest of the system). Some of the files in CMU CL have a BSD-style license requiring that credit be given to the institutions which owned the copyright to the original versions: Xerox, Inc., the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Symbolics, Inc., and Gerd Moellmann. For these files, SBCL necessarily uses the same BSD-style license as CMU CL did. The rest of the files in SBCL (as in CMU CL) are in the public domain. The boilerplate at the beginning of SBCL source files looks like this: ;;;; This software is part of the SBCL system. See the README file for ;;;; more information. ;;;; ;;;; This software is derived from the CMU CL system, which was ;;;; written at Carnegie Mellon University and released into the ;;;; public domain. The software is in the public domain and is ;;;; provided with absolutely no warranty. See the COPYING and CREDITS ;;;; files for more information. """" The COPYING file at is similar to the above <http://sbcl.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=sbcl/sbcl.git;a=blob_plain…> Guidance will be very much appreciated Thanks Togan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-bar+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-bar+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 1

by Erik Schilling 14 Aug '12

14 Aug '12

Hello Is the opensuse buildservice fine to contain cryptographic code with US export restrictions? That question says all i think :) Best regards Erik Schilling (Ablu) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-bar+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-bar+owner(a)opensuse.org

1 0

Percona XtraBackup license questions
by Andreas Stieger 22 Jul '12

22 Jul '12

Hello, this is about the package server:database / xtrabackup which I would like to bring into openSUSE:Factory. https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=xtrabackup&project=server%3… https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/128577 The upstream code license is GPL-2.0, the upstream documentation license is CC-BY-SA-2.0. Both code and documentation are contained in the upstream source tarball from which the package is built. Currently the documentation is ignored. What should the license of the resulting source package and binary packages be? Percona has a trademark policy which is one reason why I do not create the documentation from the sources, as they contain Percona's names, logos, contact information and trademarks. http://www.percona.com/doc/percona-xtrabackup/trademark-policy.html Should generating a documentation package from these source be attempted? What would the licenses of the packages be if I add a documentation sub-package? The package also contains specific source distributions of MySQL 5.5.17 and 5.1.59. These are pristine as distributed by the MySQL project and patched during the build with patches in the xtrabackup sources. As all sources involved are GPL-2.0 I don't see a problem there, albeit the sources were obtained from a Percona server. Thanks, Andreas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-bar+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-bar+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 1