From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Jul 2 15:57:46 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:57:46 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4A4CD8FA.5070805@redhat.com> On 06/12/2009 02:44 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > I am in hope that RedHat and Fedora will also start to distribute the original > software again and stop distributing the fork "cdrkit" because it is in > conflict with the Copyright law [3] because it is full of well known bugs and > because it is missing most features, people today expect from such software. > Missing features are a typical result from decoupling from the main stream > development. The source in the fork is based on 4 year old sources from > the original. Note that working on the code from the fork is not an option as > the initiators rejected to remove the Copyright violations 30 months ago and > as too many show stopper bugs are unfixed in the fork since more than 24 > months. Mr. Schilling, You seem to have several concerns here. I will again attempt, for the sake of clarity, to separate them and address them individually. I) The software "cdrkit" is full of well known bugs, and missing key features. This point may or may not be correct, however, the presence of bugs and the absence of features do not cause any legal concerns, short of possible warranty issues, but those are thoroughly disclaimed by the license (GPLv2) on cdrkit: " 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION." II) "...many Linux users have become upset from the results of a completely unneeded conflict initiated by the non-cooperative "downstream" package maintainer." There are 11 open Fedora bugs against cdrkit. None of them reflect this claim. Nevertheless, even if it was true, it does not reflect a legal or licensing concern. III) There are no licensing incompatibilities in the current "cdrtools" software. This is patently false, and it was the primary reason why Red Hat/Fedora no longer include the "cdrtools" software. "cdrtools" bundles and depends upon GPL licensed software components, while the code codebase of "cdrtools" is under the CDDL license. The CDDL has been reviewed by multiple organizations, including the FSF and Red Hat Legal, and they agree in the assessment that dependent combinations of CDDL and GPL code result in an incompatible work. In addition, there is ample documentation that this was the intention of the CDDL license authors (Sun), to prevent code sharing/compatibility with the Linux kernel. I personally spoke to Simon Phipps on this subject, and he feels that it may be possible to avoid the CDDL/GPL license compatibility concerns by using the Sun Studio toolchain rather than GCC. In discussing this possibility with Red Hat Legal, we disagree with Simon's assessments, so even if Fedora/Red Hat included the Sun Studio toolchain (we do not currently do so), we do not agree that its use resolves the licensing concerns here. IV) Some of the changes in "cdrkit" introduced Copyright law violations and even GPL violations. To date, you have never provided anyone with any evidence of specific examples of code in "cdrkit" which violates Copyright law or the terms of the GPL. In our previous private discussions, I repeatedly requested specific examples, but you were entirely unable or unwilling to present these. Therefore, I am forced to assume that they do not exist. **** So, in summary, you have failed to raise any valid concerns about Red Hat/Fedora's inclusion of "cdrkit". In addition, the situation which prevents Red Hat/Fedora from including "cdrtools" remains unchanged. If you wish to discuss this further, you will need to present either: 1) Specific examples of code in "cdrkit" which is in any way violating someone's copyright or the terms of its licensing. 2) A version of "cdrtools" which does not contain inherent license incompatibilities. This could possibly be accomplished by adding some sort of linking exception for GPL licensed code, or by choosing a license which is known to be GPL compatible as either a replacement for the CDDL or a dual-license option. I would recommend that you retain legal counsel to assist you with this task if you decide to pursue it, the Software Freedom Law Center provides no-cost assistance to FOSS coders in such matters (http://www.softwarefreedom.org/). If and when you present either of these items, we will be happy to discuss this matter further, either publicly or privately, but otherwise, we consider the matter closed. It is also worth noting that we do not need any additional copies of German Copyright Law (or any Legal Reference Texts) or Lawrence Rosen's writings, as neither of these things are overly relevant to the potential concerns surrounding the issues in these situations. Thanks, Tom "spot" Callaway, Fedora Legal From tristan.santore at internexusconnect.net Sat Jul 4 00:54:56 2009 From: tristan.santore at internexusconnect.net (Tristan Santore) Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:54:56 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Violation of trademark and fraud ? Message-ID: <4A4EA860.6010601@internexusconnect.net> Dear All, have any of you seen the site www.fedoraos.org ? Is this sanctioned ? He is asking people for donations for Fedora! Be nice, if somebody could look into this. Regards, Tristan -- Tristan Santore BSc MBCS TS4523-RIPE Network and Infrastructure Operations InterNexusConnect Mobile +44-78-55069812 Tristan.Santore at internexusconnect.net Thawte Notary For Fedora related issues email: TSantore at fedoraproject.org From chkr at fedoraproject.org Sun Jul 5 18:18:47 2009 From: chkr at fedoraproject.org (Christian Krause) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:18:47 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] BSD vs. MIT license Message-ID: <4A50EE87.1060709@fedoraproject.org> Hello, during a package review I have found another BSD/MIT license issue for which I'd like to get some advice: The package "ewl" from the enlightenment project contains a COPYING file [1] which looks much more similar to an MIT license then to a BSD license. However, the spec file which is included in the upstream tarball explicitly states BSD. In various discussions on their mailing list "E-devel" the developers also usually refer only to the BSD license (e.g. [2]). Any help is appreciated! Best regards, Christian [1] http://trac.enlightenment.org/e/browser/trunk/ewl/COPYING [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/enlightenment-devel at lists.sourceforge.net/msg17994.html From tcallawa at redhat.com Sun Jul 5 21:42:16 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:42:16 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] BSD vs. MIT license In-Reply-To: <4A50EE87.1060709@fedoraproject.org> References: <4A50EE87.1060709@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4A511E38.6010105@redhat.com> On 07/05/2009 02:18 PM, Christian Krause wrote: > Hello, > > during a package review I have found another BSD/MIT license issue for > which I'd like to get some advice: > > The package "ewl" from the enlightenment project contains a COPYING file > [1] which looks much more similar to an MIT license then to a BSD license. > > However, the spec file which is included in the upstream tarball > explicitly states BSD. > In various discussions on their mailing list "E-devel" the developers > also usually refer only to the BSD license (e.g. [2]). > > Any help is appreciated! The license you're referencing is: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT_With_Advertising Free, but GPL incompatible. Use this for the spec: License: MIT with advertising The fact that upstream incorrectly refers to it as "BSD" is irrelevant. :) ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Jul 6 14:25:01 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:25:01 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Violation of trademark and fraud ? In-Reply-To: <4A4EA860.6010601@internexusconnect.net> References: <4A4EA860.6010601@internexusconnect.net> Message-ID: <4A52093D.7080302@redhat.com> On 07/03/2009 08:54 PM, Tristan Santore wrote: > Dear All, > have any of you seen the site www.fedoraos.org ? Is this sanctioned ? He > is asking people for donations for Fedora! > > Be nice, if somebody could look into this. Tristan, Thanks for bringing this to our attention, we're looking into it. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Jul 6 15:39:38 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:39:38 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Is SIP DIPA license acceptable? In-Reply-To: <1245693195.17705.7.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1245693195.17705.7.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <4A521ABA.3050703@redhat.com> On 06/22/2009 01:53 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Hi, > > This entry was added to the fonts SIG wishlist today. Can someone tell > me if the licensing acceptable for Fedora? > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Thai_Siampradesh_fonts Sorry, but that license is non-free. ~spot From kwade at redhat.com Tue Jul 7 02:27:36 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 19:27:36 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CC BY SA 3.0 unported or ported or ... Message-ID: <20090707022736.GF15350@calliope.phig.org> I understand there are a few types of CC BY SA 3.0 license, ported and unported. http://monitor.creativecommons.org/Unported Which do we want to use when relicening all Fedora content and as our default license choice (for now)? Or is it really a three-way choice? 1. Ported only 2. Unported only 3. Ported where it exists, otherwise unported Thanks - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jonstanley at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 02:47:28 2009 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 22:47:28 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CC BY SA 3.0 unported or ported or ... In-Reply-To: <20090707022736.GF15350@calliope.phig.org> References: <20090707022736.GF15350@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > Which do we want to use when relicening all Fedora content and as our > default license choice (for now)? ?Or is it really a three-way choice? Call me an id10t, but I'm not sure what the differences are. Is it just that the text of the license is adapted to a specific country's laws? Or is there something more going on that I'm not sure of??? From kwade at redhat.com Tue Jul 7 02:59:04 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 19:59:04 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CC BY SA 3.0 unported or ported or ... In-Reply-To: References: <20090707022736.GF15350@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <20090707025904.GG15350@calliope.phig.org> On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 10:47:28PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > > > Which do we want to use when relicening all Fedora content and as our > > default license choice (for now)? ?Or is it really a three-way choice? > > Call me an id10t, but I'm not sure what the differences are. Is it > just that the text of the license is adapted to a specific country's > laws? Or is there something more going on that I'm not sure of??? Yeah, that's my read. Ported have been localized, presumably either in a local language or perhaps even legally vetted ... I'm not clear which. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jonstanley at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 03:22:54 2009 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 23:22:54 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CC BY SA 3.0 unported or ported or ... In-Reply-To: <20090707025904.GG15350@calliope.phig.org> References: <20090707022736.GF15350@calliope.phig.org> <20090707025904.GG15350@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > Yeah, that's my read. ?Ported have been localized, presumably either > in a local language or perhaps even legally vetted ... I'm not clear > which. So my take from the peanut gallery is that since RHT is a US corporation, we have to use either the US or unported license for all of the RHT-originated docs. Looking at http://creativecommons.org/international/ it appears that the actual text of the license gets changed to jive with the legal systems of particular countries. Just my $0.02 from the peanut gallery :) From luis at tieguy.org Tue Jul 7 04:28:06 2009 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 00:28:06 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CC BY SA 3.0 unported or ported or ... In-Reply-To: <20090707025904.GG15350@calliope.phig.org> References: <20090707022736.GF15350@calliope.phig.org> <20090707025904.GG15350@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <2cb10c440907062128m2d55af9fh9eadfd9ac3ba80fd@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 10:47:28PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: >> >> > Which do we want to use when relicening all Fedora content and as our >> > default license choice (for now)? ?Or is it really a three-way choice? >> >> Call me an id10t, but I'm not sure what the differences are. ?Is it >> just that the text of the license is adapted to a specific country's >> laws? ?Or is there something more going on that I'm not sure of??? > > Yeah, that's my read. ?Ported have been localized, presumably either > in a local language or perhaps even legally vetted ... I'm not clear > which. Both; ports are done by lawyers and are intended to use local legal terminology so as to be more familiar to local courts and compatible with local copyright and contract law nuance. (My two cents, not really deeply thought through, nor legal advice as I am not a lawyer: the GPL has done fine without porting for two decades. I think using ported CC licenses merely confuses and complicates with no appreciable benefit, so tend to recommend the unported when people ask me this question.) Luis From pvrabec at redhat.com Tue Jul 7 09:28:28 2009 From: pvrabec at redhat.com (Peter Vrabec) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:28:28 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] fwsnort vs. snort TM Message-ID: <200907071128.28597.pvrabec@redhat.com> Dear Fedora Legal, I'd like to push fwsnort into Fedora, but I'm afraid there might be problem with snort TM. http://www.snort.org/legal/snort-licensing/snort-trademark-guidelines I have contacted fwsnort upstream and I was told they didn't have any approval from Sourcefire Marketing. But there are more projects that use term snort on freshmeat.net. Snort is released under GPL. fwsnort doesn't use any VRT licensed Snort rules and fwsnort had probably existed before snort TM. Could you please help me to clean up this issue. thnx. Peter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Jul 7 11:22:41 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:22:41 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] fwsnort vs. snort TM In-Reply-To: <200907071128.28597.pvrabec@redhat.com> References: <200907071128.28597.pvrabec@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A533001.2000200@redhat.com> On 07/07/2009 05:28 AM, Peter Vrabec wrote: > Dear Fedora Legal, > > > I'd like to push fwsnort into Fedora, but I'm afraid there might be > problem with snort TM. > > > http://www.snort.org/legal/snort-licensing/snort-trademark-guidelines > > > I have contacted fwsnort upstream and I was told they didn't have any > approval from Sourcefire Marketing. But there are more projects that use > term snort on freshmeat.net. Snort is released under GPL. fwsnort > doesn't use any VRT licensed Snort rules and fwsnort had probably > existed before snort TM. > > > Could you please help me to clean up this issue. thnx. Well, the existence of others who are violating a registered trademark doesn't make it acceptable, this is the "everyone else is doing heroin, so my use is okay" argument. At a minimum, you'd need to rename it for Fedora so it isn't a clear derivation of "snort". ~spot From stickster at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 12:32:16 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:32:16 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update Message-ID: <20090707123216.GE13086@localhost.localdomain> Just to make sure it's seen by the legal-minded, fwiw: http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx Doesn't have anything to do with our recent move of Tomboy -> Gnote for the Live CD, but worth noting for overall packaging and background. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Jul 7 14:24:00 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:24:00 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update In-Reply-To: <20090707123216.GE13086@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090707123216.GE13086@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4A535A80.9000502@redhat.com> On 07/07/2009 08:32 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > Just to make sure it's seen by the legal-minded, fwiw: > http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx > > Doesn't have anything to do with our recent move of Tomboy -> Gnote > for the Live CD, but worth noting for overall packaging and > background. It really doesn't affect our stance on Mono at all. Microsoft is "covering" less than OIN does for us, and it doesn't go anywhere near the areas we currently stay away from (Silverlight/Moonlight). Full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. ~spot From luis at tieguy.org Tue Jul 7 19:39:03 2009 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:39:03 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update In-Reply-To: <4A535A80.9000502@redhat.com> References: <20090707123216.GE13086@localhost.localdomain> <4A535A80.9000502@redhat.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440907071239k2cf0f1bdkfb5c280c51d72382@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 07/07/2009 08:32 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: >> Just to make sure it's seen by the legal-minded, fwiw: >> http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx >> >> Doesn't have anything to do with our recent move of Tomboy -> Gnote >> for the Live CD, but worth noting for overall packaging and >> background. > > It really doesn't affect our stance on Mono at all. Microsoft is > "covering" less than OIN does for us, While I haven't read the MCP in a while, and SFLC's caveats apply, if you take it at face value it is a *very* different sort of coverage than OIN. OIN is 'if they shoot first, we'll take them down with us, so they probably won't shoot first.' MCP at least purports to be an enforceable 'we won't shoot' promise. The second is certainly a better and substantially different situation to be in, if one can take it at face value. > and it doesn't go anywhere near > the areas we currently stay away from (Silverlight/Moonlight). That's correct. Luis From luis at tieguy.org Tue Jul 7 19:44:49 2009 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:44:49 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440907071239k2cf0f1bdkfb5c280c51d72382@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090707123216.GE13086@localhost.localdomain> <4A535A80.9000502@redhat.com> <2cb10c440907071239k2cf0f1bdkfb5c280c51d72382@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440907071244i47cc2ee8ga0326bc22ed3ef87@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Luis Villa wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >> On 07/07/2009 08:32 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: >>> Just to make sure it's seen by the legal-minded, fwiw: >>> http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx >>> >>> Doesn't have anything to do with our recent move of Tomboy -> Gnote >>> for the Live CD, but worth noting for overall packaging and >>> background. >> >> It really doesn't affect our stance on Mono at all. Microsoft is >> "covering" less than OIN does for us, > > While I haven't read the MCP in a while, and SFLC's caveats apply, if > you take it at face value it is a *very* different sort of coverage > than OIN. > > OIN is 'if they shoot first, we'll take them down with us, so they > probably won't shoot first.' MCP at least purports to be an > enforceable 'we won't shoot' promise. The second is certainly a better > and substantially different situation to be in, if one can take it at > face value. By the way, I don't see Fedora listed as an OIN licensee on their licensee page: http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_licensees.php If Fedora is indeed an OIN licensee, it would be good to know that and to know what the license terms are. Luis From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Jul 7 20:02:35 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:02:35 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440907071239k2cf0f1bdkfb5c280c51d72382@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090707123216.GE13086@localhost.localdomain> <4A535A80.9000502@redhat.com> <2cb10c440907071239k2cf0f1bdkfb5c280c51d72382@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A53A9DB.707@redhat.com> On 07/07/2009 03:39 PM, Luis Villa wrote: > OIN is 'if they shoot first, we'll take them down with us, so they > probably won't shoot first.' MCP at least purports to be an > enforceable 'we won't shoot' promise. The second is certainly a better > and substantially different situation to be in, if one can take it at > face value. Yes, this is true, but without OIN's protection, and acting under the assumption that the MCP holds water, Fedora would probably only be comfortable carrying the ECMA bits covered by the MCP. The OIN coverage is for the whole mono tarball (including the ECMA and non-ECMA bits), with the notable exception of moonlight/silverlight. So, from a Fedora perspective, the MCP changes nothing. The items covered by it are already covered by OIN. Now, if they had given additional grants covering areas outside OIN (*cough*silverlight*cough*), then it might have been more interesting to us. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Jul 7 20:03:52 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:03:52 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440907071244i47cc2ee8ga0326bc22ed3ef87@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090707123216.GE13086@localhost.localdomain> <4A535A80.9000502@redhat.com> <2cb10c440907071239k2cf0f1bdkfb5c280c51d72382@mail.gmail.com> <2cb10c440907071244i47cc2ee8ga0326bc22ed3ef87@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A53AA28.1000202@redhat.com> On 07/07/2009 03:44 PM, Luis Villa wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Luis Villa wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >>> On 07/07/2009 08:32 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: >>>> Just to make sure it's seen by the legal-minded, fwiw: >>>> http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx >>>> >>>> Doesn't have anything to do with our recent move of Tomboy -> Gnote >>>> for the Live CD, but worth noting for overall packaging and >>>> background. >>> It really doesn't affect our stance on Mono at all. Microsoft is >>> "covering" less than OIN does for us, >> While I haven't read the MCP in a while, and SFLC's caveats apply, if >> you take it at face value it is a *very* different sort of coverage >> than OIN. >> >> OIN is 'if they shoot first, we'll take them down with us, so they >> probably won't shoot first.' MCP at least purports to be an >> enforceable 'we won't shoot' promise. The second is certainly a better >> and substantially different situation to be in, if one can take it at >> face value. > > By the way, I don't see Fedora listed as an OIN licensee on their > licensee page: http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_licensees.php > > If Fedora is indeed an OIN licensee, it would be good to know that and > to know what the license terms are. Fedora is a part of Red Hat, an OIN Member: http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Jul 7 20:07:17 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:37:17 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora Mozilla trademark agreement Message-ID: <4A53AAF5.6040904@fedoraproject.org> Hi, I have heard it exists but haven't actually seen it. Shouldn't it be publicly available? Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Jul 7 20:47:11 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:47:11 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora Mozilla trademark agreement In-Reply-To: <4A53AAF5.6040904@fedoraproject.org> References: <4A53AAF5.6040904@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4A53B44F.8020209@redhat.com> On 07/07/2009 04:07 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi, > > I have heard it exists but haven't actually seen it. Shouldn't it be > publicly available? It does not exist. We operate under the standard Mozilla trademark policy: https://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html Note that we get permission from Mozilla for each applied patch. ~spot From luis at tieguy.org Tue Jul 7 21:50:42 2009 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:50:42 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update In-Reply-To: <4A53A9DB.707@redhat.com> References: <20090707123216.GE13086@localhost.localdomain> <4A535A80.9000502@redhat.com> <2cb10c440907071239k2cf0f1bdkfb5c280c51d72382@mail.gmail.com> <4A53A9DB.707@redhat.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440907071450u6ac20b3s43a03729e4c794fd@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 07/07/2009 03:39 PM, Luis Villa wrote: >> OIN is 'if they shoot first, we'll take them down with us, so they >> probably won't shoot first.' MCP at least purports to be an >> enforceable 'we won't shoot' promise. The second is certainly a better >> and substantially different situation to be in, if one can take it at >> face value. > > Yes, this is true, but without OIN's protection, and acting under the > assumption that the MCP holds water, Fedora would probably only be > comfortable carrying the ECMA bits covered by the MCP. The OIN coverage > is for the whole mono tarball (including the ECMA and non-ECMA bits), Ah, yes, the additional coverage matters; I didn't realize OIN's coverage went out that far. (In retrospect, it is a shame no one took the mono guys up on their offer of ages and ages ago to split up the ECMA and non-ECMA bits.) > So, from a Fedora perspective, the MCP changes nothing. The items > covered by it are already covered by OIN. Now, if they had given > additional grants covering areas outside OIN > (*cough*silverlight*cough*), then it might have been more interesting to us. Don't hold your breath. ;) Luis From luis at tieguy.org Tue Jul 7 21:52:16 2009 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:52:16 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update In-Reply-To: <4A53AA28.1000202@redhat.com> References: <20090707123216.GE13086@localhost.localdomain> <4A535A80.9000502@redhat.com> <2cb10c440907071239k2cf0f1bdkfb5c280c51d72382@mail.gmail.com> <2cb10c440907071244i47cc2ee8ga0326bc22ed3ef87@mail.gmail.com> <4A53AA28.1000202@redhat.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440907071452t6ef3a7dbxb7808ba970079628@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 07/07/2009 03:44 PM, Luis Villa wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Luis Villa wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >>>> On 07/07/2009 08:32 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: >>>>> Just to make sure it's seen by the legal-minded, fwiw: >>>>> http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx >>>>> >>>>> Doesn't have anything to do with our recent move of Tomboy -> Gnote >>>>> for the Live CD, but worth noting for overall packaging and >>>>> background. >>>> It really doesn't affect our stance on Mono at all. Microsoft is >>>> "covering" less than OIN does for us, >>> While I haven't read the MCP in a while, and SFLC's caveats apply, if >>> you take it at face value it is a *very* different sort of coverage >>> than OIN. >>> >>> OIN is 'if they shoot first, we'll take them down with us, so they >>> probably won't shoot first.' MCP at least purports to be an >>> enforceable 'we won't shoot' promise. The second is certainly a better >>> and substantially different situation to be in, if one can take it at >>> face value. >> >> By the way, I don't see Fedora listed as an OIN licensee on their >> licensee page: http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_licensees.php >> >> If Fedora is indeed an OIN licensee, it would be good to know that and >> to know what the license terms are. > > Fedora is a part of Red Hat, an OIN Member: > > http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php So what coverage/license/protection do I, as a Fedora contributor but not a RH employee, get? (Extremely hypothetical, as I'm neither really a Fedora contributor nor is MS likely to sue me personally. But work with me here.) Luis From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Jul 7 21:59:57 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:59:57 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440907071452t6ef3a7dbxb7808ba970079628@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090707123216.GE13086@localhost.localdomain> <4A535A80.9000502@redhat.com> <2cb10c440907071239k2cf0f1bdkfb5c280c51d72382@mail.gmail.com> <2cb10c440907071244i47cc2ee8ga0326bc22ed3ef87@mail.gmail.com> <4A53AA28.1000202@redhat.com> <2cb10c440907071452t6ef3a7dbxb7808ba970079628@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A53C55D.2060701@redhat.com> On 07/07/2009 05:52 PM, Luis Villa wrote: > So what coverage/license/protection do I, as a Fedora contributor but > not a RH employee, get? You, individually? Probably none, although the likelyhood of Microsoft suing you, individually is very very very very very very low, since you are giving contributions to Fedora, who is then the distributor of said contributions. ~spot From luis at tieguy.org Tue Jul 7 22:13:00 2009 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 18:13:00 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update In-Reply-To: <4A53C55D.2060701@redhat.com> References: <20090707123216.GE13086@localhost.localdomain> <4A535A80.9000502@redhat.com> <2cb10c440907071239k2cf0f1bdkfb5c280c51d72382@mail.gmail.com> <2cb10c440907071244i47cc2ee8ga0326bc22ed3ef87@mail.gmail.com> <4A53AA28.1000202@redhat.com> <2cb10c440907071452t6ef3a7dbxb7808ba970079628@mail.gmail.com> <4A53C55D.2060701@redhat.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440907071513t7be56e3dk7deeeaa25147c147@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 07/07/2009 05:52 PM, Luis Villa wrote: >> So what coverage/license/protection do I, as a Fedora contributor but >> not a RH employee, get? > > You, individually? Probably none, Just checking. ;) > although the likelyhood of Microsoft > suing you, individually is very very very very very very low, since you > are giving contributions to Fedora, who is then the distributor of said > contributions. Sure, though of course we know they've gone around suing using companies before, so if I were a company-based contributor to Fedora (or a mirror) I'd be a bit twitchy. Luis From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Jul 8 05:15:57 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:45:57 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Mono update In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440907071513t7be56e3dk7deeeaa25147c147@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090707123216.GE13086@localhost.localdomain> <4A535A80.9000502@redhat.com> <2cb10c440907071239k2cf0f1bdkfb5c280c51d72382@mail.gmail.com> <2cb10c440907071244i47cc2ee8ga0326bc22ed3ef87@mail.gmail.com> <4A53AA28.1000202@redhat.com> <2cb10c440907071452t6ef3a7dbxb7808ba970079628@mail.gmail.com> <4A53C55D.2060701@redhat.com> <2cb10c440907071513t7be56e3dk7deeeaa25147c147@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A542B8D.5040408@fedoraproject.org> On 07/08/2009 03:43 AM, Luis Villa wrote: > > Sure, though of course we know they've gone around suing using > companies before, so if I were a company-based contributor to Fedora > (or a mirror) I'd be a bit twitchy. Then, it would be up to the company to consider joining OIN. You don't have to hold patents for that. Rahul From kwade at redhat.com Sat Jul 11 22:43:46 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:43:46 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CC BY SA 3.0 unported or ported or ... In-Reply-To: <20090707022736.GF15350@calliope.phig.org> References: <20090707022736.GF15350@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <20090711224346.GA29035@calliope.phig.org> Any thoughts about this? On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 07:27:36PM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > I understand there are a few types of CC BY SA 3.0 license, ported and > unported. > > http://monitor.creativecommons.org/Unported > > Which do we want to use when relicening all Fedora content and as our > default license choice (for now)? Or is it really a three-way choice? > > 1. Ported only > 2. Unported only > 3. Ported where it exists, otherwise unported > > Thanks - Karsten > -- > Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener > http://quaid.fedorapeople.org > AD0E0C41 -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- 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 Sun Jul 12 14:11:39 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:11:39 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CC BY SA 3.0 unported or ported or ... In-Reply-To: <20090711224346.GA29035@calliope.phig.org> References: <20090707022736.GF15350@calliope.phig.org> <20090711224346.GA29035@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <4A59EF1B.6080907@redhat.com> On 07/11/2009 06:43 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > Any thoughts about this? I'm inclined to agree with Luis. I don't see any benefit to the ported CC license at this time. ~spot From kwade at redhat.com Mon Jul 13 01:00:00 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:00:00 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CC BY SA 3.0 unported or ported or ... In-Reply-To: <4A59EF1B.6080907@redhat.com> References: <20090707022736.GF15350@calliope.phig.org> <20090711224346.GA29035@calliope.phig.org> <4A59EF1B.6080907@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090713010000.GL29035@calliope.phig.org> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 10:11:39AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On 07/11/2009 06:43 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > > Any thoughts about this? > > I'm inclined to agree with Luis. I don't see any benefit to the ported > CC license at this time. Thanks; somehow I missed Luis originak reply as well. Unported it is! - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From frankly3d at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 15:13:58 2009 From: frankly3d at gmail.com (Frank Murphy) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:13:58 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Link (International Free and Open Source Software Law Review ) Message-ID: <4A5CA0B6.2090704@gmail.com> Sorry for any noise. http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr Regards, Frank -- jabber | msn | skype: frankly3d http://www.frankly3d.com Away at Springsteen Weekend 12th July From orion at cora.nwra.com Wed Jul 15 17:10:16 2009 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:10:16 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] netcdf-perl license Message-ID: <4A5E0D78.8010005@cora.nwra.com> Currently, the netcdf-perl package license is listed as "NetCDF". The text of the license was recently changed to make the crediting UCAR/Unidata a non-obligitory request. I've attached the copyright file. I'd appreciate whether knowing whether I should change the text of the License field. Thanks! -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion at cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: COPYRIGHT URL: From nicu_fedora at nicubunu.ro Fri Jul 24 15:28:06 2009 From: nicu_fedora at nicubunu.ro (Nicu Buculei) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:28:06 +0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License for wallpapers in old Fedora releases Message-ID: <4A69D306.4030304@nicubunu.ro> At the Design-Team we figured it would be handy to provide (perhaps in a gallery) wallpapers from the old releases, so the users who liked them can have a handy access at the images. It is also useful to have when documenting our history. However, we have a licensing issue with the images created before the team establishment, from Fedora Core 1 to Fedora 7, when they were created behing the closed doors, at the Red Hat Desktop Team. My understanding is, being created Red Hat employees as part of their normal job and included into Fedora, those should have some Free license. However, for compatibility with the artwork produced currently and for easy access by everybody, it would be useful to have access to those images under a CreativeCommons license (Attribution or Attribution - Share Alike). From seeing the recent license chance of the wiki, I expect the license change for old wallpapers to be also doable but legal advice is needed. -- nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com/ From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Jul 24 18:22:16 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:22:16 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License for wallpapers in old Fedora releases In-Reply-To: <4A69D306.4030304@nicubunu.ro> References: <4A69D306.4030304@nicubunu.ro> Message-ID: <4A69FBD8.2010106@redhat.com> On 07/24/2009 11:28 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote: > At the Design-Team we figured it would be handy to provide (perhaps in a > gallery) wallpapers from the old releases, so the users who liked them > can have a handy access at the images. It is also useful to have when > documenting our history. > > However, we have a licensing issue with the images created before the > team establishment, from Fedora Core 1 to Fedora 7, when they were > created behing the closed doors, at the Red Hat Desktop Team. Nicu, In order to handle this properly, I'm going to need a list of the specific files. Can you generate that list for me? Bonus if you can actually get the files in one directory somewhere. :) ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sun Jul 26 20:35:21 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:05:21 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] aria2 license Message-ID: <4A6CBE09.5040600@fedoraproject.org> Hi, http://aria2.sf.net was marked as GPLv2 so far. I recently took over the package and noticed that the license is actually GPLv2+ with an exception for OpenSSL. That doesn't seem to be specifically covered under the licensing page. I have marked it as GPLv2+ with exceptions in the latest rawhide update. If someone could verify this, it would be useful. Rahul From nicu_fedora at nicubunu.ro Mon Jul 27 08:59:40 2009 From: nicu_fedora at nicubunu.ro (Nicu Buculei) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:59:40 +0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License for wallpapers in old Fedora releases In-Reply-To: <4A69FBD8.2010106@redhat.com> References: <4A69D306.4030304@nicubunu.ro> <4A69FBD8.2010106@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A6D6C7C.5030800@nicubunu.ro> On 07/24/2009 09:22 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 07/24/2009 11:28 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote: >> At the Design-Team we figured it would be handy to provide (perhaps in a >> gallery) wallpapers from the old releases, so the users who liked them >> can have a handy access at the images. It is also useful to have when >> documenting our history. >> >> However, we have a licensing issue with the images created before the >> team establishment, from Fedora Core 1 to Fedora 7, when they were >> created behing the closed doors, at the Red Hat Desktop Team. > > Nicu, > > In order to handle this properly, I'm going to need a list of the > specific files. Can you generate that list for me? Bonus if you can > actually get the files in one directory somewhere. :) From FC1 to FC5 the wallpapers used to be part of the desktop-backgrounds-basic package (marked as LGPL licensed) with the /usr/share/backgrounds/images/default.png filename. For FC6 and F7 they were moved in fedora-logos (marked as Copyright Red Hat) with the /usr/share/backgrounds/images/default.png filename. Here is a collection of the files (thanks to Martin, who had it already prepared): http://mso.fedorapeople.org/wallpapers/.old-wallpapers/ -- nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com/ From mhlavink at redhat.com Mon Jul 27 11:19:34 2009 From: mhlavink at redhat.com (Michal Hlavinka) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:19:34 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Openssl license "infectivness" and GPLv2 compatibility Message-ID: <200907271319.34526.mhlavink@redhat.com> Hi, I'm maintaining apcupsd package. Apcupsd itself is under GPLv2 license. Apcupsd daemon in this package is linked against a few libraries including net-snmp and openssl. licenses are (based on License tag in rpm): OpenSSL : OpenSSL net-snmp : BSD and MIT I'd like to know answers for these questions: 1) Is apcupsd allowed to link against openssl since openssl seems to be incompatible with GPLv2? [1] 2) Because net-snmp itself is linked against openssl, should not its license in fact be BSD and MIT and OpenSSL? 3) If apcupsd is not allowed to link against openssl, is it allowed to link against net-snmp which is linked against openssl? Cheers, Michal Hlavinka [1] http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses#GPLv2- incompatible_licenses From tibbs at math.uh.edu Mon Jul 27 18:58:56 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:58:56 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Openssl license "infectivness" and GPLv2 compatibility In-Reply-To: <200907271319.34526.mhlavink@redhat.com> (Michal Hlavinka's message of "Mon\, 27 Jul 2009 13\:19\:34 +0200") References: <200907271319.34526.mhlavink@redhat.com> Message-ID: >>>>> "MH" == Michal Hlavinka writes: MH> 1) Is apcupsd allowed to link against openssl since openssl seems MH> to be incompatible with GPLv2? [1] Not without an exception. MH> 2) Because net-snmp itself is linked against openssl, should not MH> its license in fact be BSD and MIT and OpenSSL? Not unless it's statically linked or somehow includes the actual openssl binary files in the package. MH> 3) If apcupsd is not allowed to link against openssl, is it MH> allowed to link against net-snmp which is linked against openssl? That's probably a legal question, but I'd say no. - J< From tibbs at math.uh.edu Mon Jul 27 19:06:39 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:06:39 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] aria2 license In-Reply-To: <4A6CBE09.5040600@fedoraproject.org> (Rahul Sundaram's message of "Mon\, 27 Jul 2009 02\:05\:21 +0530") References: <4A6CBE09.5040600@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: >>>>> "RS" == Rahul Sundaram writes: RS> Hi, http://aria2.sf.net was marked as GPLv2 so far. I recently RS> took over the package and noticed that the license is actually RS> GPLv2+ with an exception for OpenSSL. That doesn't seem to be RS> specifically covered under the licensing page. Adding exceptions to GPLv2+ gets you "GPLv2+ with exceptions". It doesn't really matter what the exceptions are, as long as they aren't actually incompatible with the GPL. - J< From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 27 22:39:45 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:09:45 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] A new GCC runtime library license snag? Message-ID: <4A6E2CB1.7050201@fedoraproject.org> Hi, Just a heads up in case, Legal isn't aware of this problem http://lwn.net/Articles/343608/ Rahul From dcantrell at redhat.com Tue Jul 28 21:24:02 2009 From: dcantrell at redhat.com (David Cantrell) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:24:02 -1000 (HST) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] nautilus-dropbox question Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but I'd like to package nautilus-dropbox for inclusion in Fedora. There are a few concerns I have and if this program is something destined for the ForbiddenItems list, I'd like to know that before I go and package it. First off, what is nautilus-dropbox? If you head to www.getdropbox.com, you'll find information about the Dropbox service from Evenflow, Inc. There's a neat video you can watch on the site. In short, it's a shared folder that you can use across multiple computers. Makes it easy to sync up projects and files. nautilus-dropbox is a GPL'ed component they wrote for GNOME desktops. This is the part you download from them and install. The provide packages for Ubuntu and even a Ubuntu deb repository, but nothing for Fedora beyond Fedora 10. I'd like to skip to just including nautilus-dropbox in our repos if possible. Questions and concerns: 1) nautilus-dropbox is licensed under the GPL, but the image files they include in the package are not. Specifically, it says: All images included in this package constitute data and are not licensed for you to use under the terms of the GPL. You may not use the images included in this package for any reason other than redistributing this package without first obtaining permission from Evenflow, Inc. You are explicitly forbidden from using these images in any other software package. This includes the files: data/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps/dropbox.png data/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps/dropbox.png data/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps/dropbox.png data/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/dropbox.png data/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/dropbox.png data/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps/dropbox.png data/icons/hicolor/64x64/emblems/emblem-dropbox-syncing.png data/icons/hicolor/64x64/emblems/emblem-dropbox-uptodate.png data/icons/hicolor/64x64/emblems/emblem-dropbox-unsyncable.png While it appears we can redistribute them with nautilus-dropbox, users would not be allowed to use these images for other things. Is replacing them sufficient for Fedora packaging? What about the pristine source? Can they be left in the source archive or does that have to be scrubbed? 2) nautilus-dropbox itself is a small piece of the larger dropbox client system. When you install it, it will determine if you have ~/.dropbox-dist on your system. If you don't, it will run the dropbox setup "thing", which downloads dropbox-dist from Evenflow for your system and places it in ~/.dropbox-dist. The contents of ~/.dropbox-dist are precompiled variants of all of the libraries and programs they need to run. Dropbox appears to ignore the system versions and just has you use whatever they include. This isn't really part of nautilus-dropbox, it's just installed by the setup program on the first run. The concern here is do we care about programs that download large wads of precompiled software and stuff it in dot directories? Thanks, (When replying, please include me directly because I'm not on fedora-legal-list.) - -- David Cantrell Red Hat / Honolulu, HI -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkpvbHIACgkQ5hsjjIy1Vkl8oACgiCGSoRsv79ryyKjqJN3muuvM 1pkAoInXZ9Hkt0XKjoNdMCxFdxW/zhr1 =yTzN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Jul 28 21:41:21 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:41:21 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] nautilus-dropbox question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A6F7081.30606@redhat.com> On 07/28/2009 05:24 PM, David Cantrell wrote: > While it appears we can redistribute them with nautilus-dropbox, users would > not be allowed to use these images for other things. Is replacing them > sufficient for Fedora packaging? What about the pristine source? Can they be > left in the source archive or does that have to be scrubbed? Replacing them should be sufficient, as long as they are also deleted in %prep. You don't need to repackage the source archive, since we technically have permission to redistribute them, albeit under extremely narrow and unfriendly terms. > 2) nautilus-dropbox itself is a small piece of the larger dropbox client > system. When you install it, it will determine if you have ~/.dropbox-dist on > your system. If you don't, it will run the dropbox setup "thing", which > downloads dropbox-dist from Evenflow for your system and places it in > ~/.dropbox-dist. The contents of ~/.dropbox-dist are precompiled variants of > all of the libraries and programs they need to run. Dropbox appears to ignore > the system versions and just has you use whatever they include. This is the very definition of code fail. I think you're going to need to patch this out, so it uses system libs. > This isn't really part of nautilus-dropbox, it's just installed by the setup > program on the first run. The concern here is do we care about programs that > download large wads of precompiled software and stuff it in dot directories? Yeah, we care. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Jul 28 21:57:42 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:57:42 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] nautilus-dropbox question In-Reply-To: References: <4A6F7081.30606@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A6F7456.6040207@redhat.com> On 07/28/2009 05:48 PM, David Cantrell wrote: > As there is nothing to patch, I guess this makes nautilus-dropbox destined for > the ForbiddenItems list. The contents of ~/.dropbox-dist is handed to you by > www.getdropbox.com when you run "dropbox -i". It's already built and > self-contained at that point. The only thing that one could possibly do is > remove libraries and commands in ~/.dropbox-dist and symlink to the ones on > the system, but that seems like a lot of work for nothing and no guarantee > that it'll work. > > Sad. Dropbox is actually a really cool service. Can't you patch the dropbox "setup thing" to not be stupid? :) ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Jul 29 13:40:45 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:40:45 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] nautilus-dropbox question In-Reply-To: References: <4A6F7081.30606@redhat.com> <4A6F7456.6040207@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A70515D.4090601@redhat.com> On 07/28/2009 06:02 PM, David Cantrell wrote: > The setup thing doesn't do any compilation or anything like that. The archive > downloaded is already compiled by Evenflow. All the setup thing does is > unpack it. nautilus-dropbox runs it. So, there is no source code available for any of the bits being downloaded? If so, then it definitely isn't acceptable for Fedora because dropbox isn't open source. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Jul 31 19:03:19 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:03:19 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License for wallpapers in old Fedora releases In-Reply-To: <4A69D306.4030304@nicubunu.ro> References: <4A69D306.4030304@nicubunu.ro> Message-ID: <4A733FF7.20807@redhat.com> On 07/24/2009 11:28 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote: > At the Design-Team we figured it would be handy to provide (perhaps in a > gallery) wallpapers from the old releases, so the users who liked them > can have a handy access at the images. It is also useful to have when > documenting our history. > > However, we have a licensing issue with the images created before the > team establishment, from Fedora Core 1 to Fedora 7, when they were > created behing the closed doors, at the Red Hat Desktop Team. > > My understanding is, being created Red Hat employees as part of their > normal job and included into Fedora, those should have some Free license. So, I should have caught this initially, but Red Hat Legal noticed that all of these images contain the Fedora logo. Accordingly, we can't permit these images to be released under a license which permits modification. So, this means there are two options remaining: 1. We can package up these backgrounds with a license identical to that of the fedora-logos package (basically, right to use, copy, and redistribute, but not modify, with some extra conditions around the Fedora marks). 2. We could take the images and remove the Fedora trademarks from them and release them under a Creative Commons license. Or, we could do both. Let me know what you think, ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Jul 31 19:08:13 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:08:13 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License for wallpapers in old Fedora releases In-Reply-To: <4A733FF7.20807@redhat.com> References: <4A69D306.4030304@nicubunu.ro> <4A733FF7.20807@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A73411D.5070601@redhat.com> On 07/31/2009 03:03 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 07/24/2009 11:28 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote: >> At the Design-Team we figured it would be handy to provide (perhaps in a >> gallery) wallpapers from the old releases, so the users who liked them >> can have a handy access at the images. It is also useful to have when >> documenting our history. >> >> However, we have a licensing issue with the images created before the >> team establishment, from Fedora Core 1 to Fedora 7, when they were >> created behing the closed doors, at the Red Hat Desktop Team. >> >> My understanding is, being created Red Hat employees as part of their >> normal job and included into Fedora, those should have some Free license. > > So, I should have caught this initially, but Red Hat Legal noticed that > all of these images contain the Fedora logo. Accordingly, we can't > permit these images to be released under a license which permits > modification. > > So, this means there are two options remaining: > > 1. We can package up these backgrounds with a license identical to that > of the fedora-logos package (basically, right to use, copy, and > redistribute, but not modify, with some extra conditions around the > Fedora marks). Clarification point: These can be a fedora-logos-backgrounds subpackage, not a new package. (As the fedora-logos maintainer, I have permission to do this.) ~spot