From lemenkov at gmail.com Mon Jun 1 13:42:55 2009 From: lemenkov at gmail.com (Peter Lemenkov) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:42:55 +0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Regarding status of SRP (Secure remote password) support Message-ID: Hello All! Fedora ships gnutls (and, probably, other applications) w/o SRP support, which was disabled years ago (in the era of Jeff Jonston). See technical description here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_remote_password_protocol Being curious lad, I quickly googled about its patents issues and found numerous discussion in the past. For example: http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/mailinglists/ips/mail/msg09292.html http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/mailinglists/ips/mail/msg08027.html >From these discussions, I found that patent holder provides a royalty-free license: http://otl.stanford.edu/pdf/97006.pdf I cannot find any other patent-related info at the dedicated site (created by patent holder): http://srp.stanford.edu/ Maybe it's time to re-add support for SRP back in Fedora? -- With best regards! From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Jun 5 00:04:41 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:34:41 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Songbird and EULA Message-ID: <4A286119.30307@fedoraproject.org> Hi Potential issue with Songbird and EULA is brewing at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422#c64 Appreciate some comments from legal on this. Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Jun 5 14:33:41 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Songbird and EULA In-Reply-To: <4A286119.30307@fedoraproject.org> References: <4A286119.30307@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4A292CC5.40901@redhat.com> On 06/04/2009 08:04 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > Potential issue with Songbird and EULA is brewing at > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453422#c64 > > Appreciate some comments from legal on this. Blocked against FE-Legal, with a lengthy explanation of why EULAs in free software are epic fail. ~spot From frankly3d at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 08:34:21 2009 From: frankly3d at gmail.com (Frank Murphy (Frankly3d)) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:34:21 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] BlueJ: Help with Licence Check? Message-ID: <4A2A2A0D.6050303@gmail.com> http://www.bluej.org/about/license.html Before I do anything package wise, would this licence be compliant with Fedora Guidelines (Third Party\Exceptions) Frank -- msn: frankly3d skype: frankly3d Mailing-List Reply to: Mailing-List Still Learning, Unicode where possible From tcallawa at redhat.com Sat Jun 6 13:49:08 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:49:08 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] BlueJ: Help with Licence Check? In-Reply-To: <4A2A2A0D.6050303@gmail.com> References: <4A2A2A0D.6050303@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A2A73D4.6040601@redhat.com> On 06/06/2009 04:34 AM, Frank Murphy (Frankly3d) wrote: > http://www.bluej.org/about/license.html > > Before I do anything package wise, > would this licence be compliant with Fedora Guidelines > (Third Party\Exceptions) Yes. The main license is GPLv2 with the classpath exception, and the third party libraries it links to are all free (several of them are GPL incompatible, but the classpath exception works around that). Just be sure you don't bundle in copies of the third party bits when you make the bluej package. ~spot From rjones at redhat.com Tue Jun 9 09:41:36 2009 From: rjones at redhat.com (Richard W.M. Jones) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:41:36 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FYI - chntpw package Message-ID: <20090609094136.GA8441@amd.home.annexia.org> Just for your information: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504595 I'm going to add the patch from Debian to resolve this issue. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v From tmz at pobox.com Tue Jun 9 12:31:53 2009 From: tmz at pobox.com (Todd Zullinger) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:31:53 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FYI - chntpw package In-Reply-To: <20090609094136.GA8441@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20090609094136.GA8441@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <20090609123153.GG2240@inocybe.localdomain> Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Just for your information: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504595 > > I'm going to add the patch from Debian to resolve this issue. Haven't we considered OpenSSL as a core part of the OS and not worried about linking to it without any special exceptions by the GPL'd code? If not, there are a good many more program that will need patched. -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 542 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Jun 9 12:50:49 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 08:50:49 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FYI - chntpw package In-Reply-To: <20090609123153.GG2240@inocybe.localdomain> References: <20090609094136.GA8441@amd.home.annexia.org> <20090609123153.GG2240@inocybe.localdomain> Message-ID: <4A2E5AA9.4010603@redhat.com> On 06/09/2009 08:31 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote: > Haven't we considered OpenSSL as a core part of the OS and not worried > about linking to it without any special exceptions by the GPL'd code? > > If not, there are a good many more program that will need patched. Yes, this is accurate. That said, if the maintainer wants to apply a patch, I won't tell them they can't do it. ~spot From rjones at redhat.com Tue Jun 9 13:03:23 2009 From: rjones at redhat.com (Richard W.M. Jones) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 14:03:23 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FYI - chntpw package In-Reply-To: <4A2E5AA9.4010603@redhat.com> References: <20090609094136.GA8441@amd.home.annexia.org> <20090609123153.GG2240@inocybe.localdomain> <4A2E5AA9.4010603@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090609130323.GA9097@amd.home.annexia.org> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 08:50:49AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On 06/09/2009 08:31 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote: > > Haven't we considered OpenSSL as a core part of the OS and not worried > > about linking to it without any special exceptions by the GPL'd code? > > > > If not, there are a good many more program that will need patched. > > Yes, this is accurate. That said, if the maintainer wants to apply a > patch, I won't tell them they can't do it. Well, I've applied Debian's patch now anyway ... Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v From tmz at pobox.com Tue Jun 9 13:11:41 2009 From: tmz at pobox.com (Todd Zullinger) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:11:41 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FYI - chntpw package In-Reply-To: <20090609130323.GA9097@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20090609094136.GA8441@amd.home.annexia.org> <20090609123153.GG2240@inocybe.localdomain> <4A2E5AA9.4010603@redhat.com> <20090609130323.GA9097@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <20090609131141.GH2240@inocybe.localdomain> Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Well, I've applied Debian's patch now anyway ... So if the legal winds should shift, you'll be covered. :) Just out of curiousity, do you know if anyone asked chntpw upstream if they'd add a OpenSSL exception to the license? I know GnuPG (at least the 1.4 branch) did so a while back. -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What we seek is not the overthrow of the government, but a situation in which it gets lost in the shuffle. -- Duncan Frissell -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 542 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rjones at redhat.com Tue Jun 9 14:34:20 2009 From: rjones at redhat.com (Richard W.M. Jones) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:34:20 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FYI - chntpw package In-Reply-To: <20090609131141.GH2240@inocybe.localdomain> References: <20090609094136.GA8441@amd.home.annexia.org> <20090609123153.GG2240@inocybe.localdomain> <4A2E5AA9.4010603@redhat.com> <20090609130323.GA9097@amd.home.annexia.org> <20090609131141.GH2240@inocybe.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090609143420.GA10185@amd.home.annexia.org> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 09:11:41AM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: > Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Well, I've applied Debian's patch now anyway ... > > So if the legal winds should shift, you'll be covered. :) > > Just out of curiousity, do you know if anyone asked chntpw upstream if > they'd add a OpenSSL exception to the license? I know GnuPG (at least > the 1.4 branch) did so a while back. I'm wholly confused by what the licensing problem is, but according to the original bugzilla report Debian have asked one of the upstreams (chntpw or openssl?) for an exception and it has been turned down: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504595 I sent a bunch of patches to upstream chntpw yesterday[1], which is what prompted this whole affair (I also sent the patches to the Debian maintainer who promptly filed the above bug). I've not heard anything back at the moment about those patches. It's reported that upstream chntpw may be dead. Unfortunate as it's the only game in town if you want to decode Windows registry files using free software ... Rich. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504580 -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/ From tmz at pobox.com Tue Jun 9 14:42:26 2009 From: tmz at pobox.com (Todd Zullinger) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:42:26 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FYI - chntpw package In-Reply-To: <20090609143420.GA10185@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20090609094136.GA8441@amd.home.annexia.org> <20090609123153.GG2240@inocybe.localdomain> <4A2E5AA9.4010603@redhat.com> <20090609130323.GA9097@amd.home.annexia.org> <20090609131141.GH2240@inocybe.localdomain> <20090609143420.GA10185@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <20090609144225.GJ2240@inocybe.localdomain> Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > I'm wholly confused by what the licensing problem is, but according > to the original bugzilla report Debian have asked one of the > upstreams (chntpw or openssl?) for an exception and it has been > turned down: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504595 Ahh, indeed it is stated there that they asked upstream. Sorry for not having my eyes open. Thanks for the summary and effort! -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 542 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Fri Jun 12 18:44:29 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:44:29 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora Message-ID: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Hi! In former times, there was an excellent cooperative relationship between the development of cdrtools and the various Linux distributions (in special with Debian). Unfortunately, this changed in Spring 2004, a few months after the Debian package maintainer for the cdrtools has been replaced with a new and non-cooperative "downstream". As a result, during the past few years, many Linux users have become upset from the results of a completely unneeded conflict initiated by the non-cooperative "downstream" package maintainer. Many Linux distributions (including RedHat and Fedora) have become victims of this conflict. The conflict started in May 2004 with some anti-OSS and anti-social actions against the OSS project bundle "cdrtools". The non-cooperative "downstream" package maintainer started his high profile attack against the cdrtools project in May 2004. His attacks have been based on his personal frustration that was solely caused by his missing programming skills and his personal concept of dealing with these deficits. He later extended his attacks and finally incorrectly claimed that there were license problems in the cdrtools project and created a fork. As _reaction_ on his claims and in order to defend the freedom of the cdrtools software against these claims that have been based on an incorrect GPL interpretation (it would turn the GPL into a non-free license if taken seriously), the license of the original software was changed to avoid the GPL as far as possible. This was done after many people from the OSS community and several lawyers have been asked about possible problems, caused by the planned license change. As nobody did see a problem, the license change was carried out. A lot of new code and functionality was introduced since then and many older bugs have been fixed in the original software. Nearly 50% of the current code is code that was introduced or rewritten after the license change did take place. Note that the people who claim that there is a "potential problem that might result in a lawsuit" did never verify a possible problem and as they do not even own any Copyright on the code, they themselves are not allowed to sue people based on the cdrtools code. At the same time, the fork introduced many new bugs and questionable changes that reduced it's portability and it's usability. While the code quality of the fork declined, some of the changes introduced Copyright law violations [1] and even GPL [2] violations, making the fork undistributable. In December 2006 the initiators of the unlawful changes have been contacted and informed in depth about the violations. They have been asked to make the fork legal again to no avail. Eight months after the fork was created, the development of the fork stopped on May 6th 2007 as it's initiator stopped "working" on it. For some time, I was in hope that the big number of bugs in the fork (there are approx. 150 different bugs in total if you sum up all entries from all bug tracking systems from various Linux distributors) and the fact that it is no longer actively been worked on, would cause the Linux distributions to return to the legal original software. This did unfortunately not happen. I did wait a long time in hope that the problem will go away initiated from judiciousness but after some time, I am no longer willing to tolerate the distribution of the questionable fork. About a year ago, I asked the Sun Microsystems legal department to do another full legal review for the original software to make sure that none of the claims from the people who attack cdrtools is valid. In October 2008, the Sun legal department confirmed that there is no legal problem with the original software. At CeBIT on March 6th 2009, there was a meeting with me (J?rg Schilling, the main developer and main Copyright holder), Simon Phipps (the Sun Microsystems OpenSource Evangelist), a neutral observer and a FTP-master from Debian. During this meeting, Debian agreed to start shipping the original software again as soon as possible. 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. I am looking forward to see RedHat and Fedora start to ship again the legal original software from ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ and rejoin the community of OSS and user friendly distributions. Don't let the OSS users suffer anymore from the conflict introduced by a single hostile person. RedHat and Fedora should deliver what people need in order to be able to write CDs/DVDs/BluRays and this is the original software. The original software is easy to compile (you just need to type "make" - or better "smake") and it is 100% complete, so it does not need any unusual software package besides a compiler. The original software is expected to be always bug-free as bug fixes typically take only a few hours. The original software strictly follows all written conditions from the GPL [4]. Under the assumption that the GPL is a free OSS license [5] (and in special is compatible with the text in section 9 of the OSS definition) and that typical Linux distributions are at least mostly legal, the license combinations used in cdrtools are of course legal too, according to the best GPL explanation [6] [7] I could find in the net and of course according to the Sun Microsystems legal department. Lawrence Rosen, the Author of [6] and [7] advised the Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org). -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some statistics on the project activities: Cdrecord started as project in January 1996, but it was built on top of older Code (e.g. libschily from 1984, libscg from 1986 and the schily makefile system from 1992). Cdrtools include now also e.g. mkisofs that started as Project in September 1993 and that is maintained by the cdrtools project since spring 1997. The license change towards using CDDL for most code has been done on May 15th 2006. In the time between January 1985 and December 1995, there have been 638 file putbacks done in 385 groups (385 unique delta comments). In the time between January 1996 and May 14th 2006, there have been 8847 file putbacks done in 4280 groups (4280 unique delta comments). In the time between May 15th 2006 and today, there have been 4735 file putbacks done in 1695 groups (1695 unique delta comments). Approx 30% of all putbacks have been made after May 15th 2006, this is why the fork misses so many features people like to see today.... In the time past May 6th 2007, there have been 2441 file putbacks done in 882 groups (882 unique delta comments). During the same time, there have been 63 putbacks in the fork. This why people call the fork "dead". In other words: the original software has a sustained rate between 2.5 and 3 file changes per day since more than 13 years. This is why there are no know bugs and no known problems with the original software. While the original project did deliver ~ 50 new releases (that did not have any known bugs at the time of delivery) since May 15th 2006, the fork did not deliver a single release without plenty of well known bugs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__13.html [2] Whether it not the GPL violations apply to Redhat and Fedora also, depends on the way a typical Redhat/Fedora installation looks like. [3] http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/index.html [4] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.php [5] http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php [6] http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GPL.PDF [7] http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf Please help to defend OpenSource Software against attacks! Best Regards J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From ciaran at member.fsf.org Fri Jun 12 19:07:04 2009 From: ciaran at member.fsf.org (Ciaran O'Riordan) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:07:04 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> (Joerg Schilling's message of "Fri\, 12 Jun 2009 20\:44\:29 +0200") References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> I know nothing about this story :-) but I happen to remember a part of the original debate back in 2006, so for context here it is: http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/ The licence issue referred to, AFAICT, is that Joerg Schilling changed cdrtools from GPL to CDDL (in 2006) so someone (Debian?) launched cdrkit because GPL compatibility was seen as possibly essential (for combination with other GPL'd packages) and surely something worth keeping (among other reasons). back to lurking... -- Ciar?n O'Riordan, +32 487 64 17 54, http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ Software patents wiki: http://en.swpat.org/ End Software Patents: http://www.EndSoftwarePatents.org/ Donate: http://endsoftwarepatents.org/donate List: http://campaigns.fsf.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/esp-action-alert From choeger at cs.tu-berlin.de Fri Jun 12 19:28:13 2009 From: choeger at cs.tu-berlin.de (Christoph =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F6ger?=) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:28:13 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> Message-ID: <1244834893.1481.14.camel@choeger5.umpa.netz> I am not in any way officially speaking for fedora, Just my 2ct: 1. FSF is very explicit about GPL and CDDL: > This means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the > CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the > CDDL for this reason. So at this point it seems to be illegal to distribute mkisofs. I wonder if one could use a special exception (I asked FSF europe once on licensing an eclipse plugin but that was GPL'd source distributed with EPL components, not sure if that applies here.). 2. J?rg, could you please be more verbosive about why exactly fedora is currently violating UrhG? I cannot see how how you could revoke a once granted license because they use "your" filenames. Especially: Which marks do you claim are required because of ?13 and since cdrkit is a derived work how do debian developers in _any_ way change _your_ work? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil URL: From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Fri Jun 12 19:45:08 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:45:08 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> Message-ID: <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote: > > I know nothing about this story :-) but I happen to remember a part of the > original debate back in 2006, so for context here it is: > http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/ Could we please have a fact based discussion? The article you quote is not based on facts. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From frankly3d at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 20:02:31 2009 From: frankly3d at gmail.com (Frank Murphy) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:02:31 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4A32B457.7060107@gmail.com> On 12/06/09 20:45, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote: > >> >> I know nothing about this story :-) but I happen to remember a part of the >> original debate back in 2006, so for context here it is: >> http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/ > > Could we please have a fact based discussion? > > The article you quote is not based on facts. > > J?rg > I don't know the background to this. But why not re-licence all your new code since 2006 as gpl. If the cddl, is what's blocking it's adoption, by various distros. Frank -- jabber | msn | google-talk | skype: frankly3d (Skype will be scrapped 1st July 2009) http://www.frankly3d.com Mailing-List Reply to: Mailing-List From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Fri Jun 12 20:12:29 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:12:29 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <1244834893.1481.14.camel@choeger5.umpa.netz> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <1244834893.1481.14.camel@choeger5.umpa.netz> Message-ID: <4a32b6ad.9TNX3nEZ2GuJIySK%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Christoph H?ger wrote: > I am not in any way officially speaking for fedora, Just my 2ct: > > 1. FSF is very explicit about GPL and CDDL: The FSF has no relevence for the cdrtools project as the FSF does not own Copyright on the project. Please let us discuss relevent text only. > > This means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the > > CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the > > CDDL for this reason. This is text that was not written by a lawyer and it is a proof that we need to ignore claims from the FSF - sorry but the FSF is not a neutral institution. The FSF has private interests with propagating own products. This results in biased claims like the one above. If you did read the articles from literature list I provided with my last mail, you did even understand why this claim from the FSF is not correct. Please read the articles from Lawrence Rose. He is a neutral lawyer and he explains the GPL in full details. > So at this point it seems to be illegal to distribute mkisofs. I wonder The GPL was intentionally made compatible to any independent library under any license. See: http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GPL.PDF http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf If you believe that the GPL does not offer this compatibility, then you believe that any Linux distribution is illegal and you would need to remove the GPL from the list of approved OSS licenses and the licenses that follow the OpenSource definition in: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php > 2. J?rg, could you please be more verbosive about why exactly fedora is > currently violating UrhG? I cannot see how how you could revoke a once I did do this to the initiators of the fork. As they have no interest in making the fork legal, it makes no sense to discuss this. > granted license because they use "your" filenames. Especially: Which > marks do you claim are required because of ?13 and since cdrkit is a > derived work how do debian developers in _any_ way change _your_ work? A license like the GPL is just a contract and a contract cannot enforce claims that are in conflict with the related law. You only have the right to modify the sources if you follow the rules from the law. As the initiators of the fork don't like to do this, the fork cannot be legally distributed. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From christofer.c.bell at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 20:17:46 2009 From: christofer.c.bell at gmail.com (Christofer C. Bell) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:17:46 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote: > > > > > I know nothing about this story :-) but I happen to remember a part of the > > original debate back in 2006, so for context here it is: > > http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/ > > Could we please have a fact based discussion? > > The article you quote is not based on facts. J?rg, The link provided in the above article contains pretty detailed reasoning justifying the fork of cdrkit from cdrtools. ?In reading your post, I see the following 3 main points: * I disagree with the fork. * The fork is buggy. * Please use my software instead. I don't see any detailed reasoning, backed by evidence, that your position is the correct one to adopt. Can you please provide some more detailed reasoning for your disagreement? The salient point from the webpage linked above: "The CDDL is incompatible with the GPL. The FSF itself says that this is the case as do people who helped draft the CDDL. One current and one former Sun employee visited the annual Debian conference in Mexico in 2006. Danese Cooper clearly stated there that the CDDL was intentionally modelled on the MPL in order to make it GPL-incompatible." Are you saying this statement is not true? You furthermore claim that the distribution of cdrkit is "illegal." My understanding is that cdrkit is based on GPL licensed code. Is there code that is not GPL licensed in the software contained in cdrkit? The GPL grants full modification and redistribution rights to all who receive code licensed under it. If the maintainers of cdrkit received, are modifying, and then redistributing that code under the terms of the GPL, what is being done that's "illegal"? Note: IANAL, I do not speak for the Fedora Project. -- Chris From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Fri Jun 12 20:23:53 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:23:53 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4A32B457.7060107@gmail.com> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32B457.7060107@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4a32b959.5VqzLiS78/35URYf%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Frank Murphy wrote: > On 12/06/09 20:45, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote: > > > >> > >> I know nothing about this story :-) but I happen to remember a part of the > >> original debate back in 2006, so for context here it is: > >> http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/ > > > > Could we please have a fact based discussion? > > > > The article you quote is not based on facts. > I don't know the background to this. If you don't know the background, I recommend you to read the mail I send today: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-June/msg00012.html and the other background information that is on the project's web pages since years: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html > But why not re-licence all your new code since 2006 as gpl. > If the cddl, is what's blocking it's adoption, by various distros. Sorry, the problem is unrelated to licenses. It is resulting from a social problem of the initiator of the fork. The CDDL is a generally approved OSS license and even accepted by RedHat (see e.g. the star project). In addition, the GPL was made intentionally compatible to _any_ independend library of any license, so the license combinations used in mkisofs do not create any legal problem. I am not going to re-introduce a license that acording to the private interpretation from the initiator of the fork is not a valid OSS license, so the GPL is no option. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From christofer.c.bell at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 20:30:31 2009 From: christofer.c.bell at gmail.com (Christofer C. Bell) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:30:31 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4a32b959.5VqzLiS78/35URYf%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32B457.7060107@gmail.com> <4a32b959.5VqzLiS78/35URYf%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <143f0f6c0906121330q2418e472nc7c5f5f188811441@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > I am not going to re-introduce a license that acording to the private > interpretation from the initiator of the fork is not a valid OSS license, > so the GPL is no option. Where do you get the idea that the Debian maintainers feel the GPL is not a valid OSS license? They've not maintained that either the GPL or the CDDL are non-free, they're saying they're incompatible. Again, from the webpage[1]: "While the CDDL *may* be a free license, we never questioned if it is free or not, as it is not our place to decide this as the Debian cdrtools maintainers. However, having been approved by OSI doesn't mean it's ok for any usage, as J?rg unfortunately seems to assume. There are several OSI-approved licenses that are GPL-incompatible and CDDL is one of them. That is and always was our point." The GPL is a free OSS license. The CDDL is a free OSS license. They are not compatible with each other and code licensed on them cannot be used together. Your software is problematic from a licensing perspective. The personalities of the Debian maintainers are not germane to this discussion. Please present fact-based reasons for your disagreement and justification for the use of your software in a GPL environment. Your opinions about the Debian maintainers are irrelevant. [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/ -- Chris From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Fri Jun 12 20:33:09 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:33:09 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Christofer C. Bell" wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Joerg Schilling > wrote: > > > > "Ciaran O'Riordan" wrote: > > > > > > > > I know nothing about this story :-) but I happen to remember a part of the > > > original debate back in 2006, so for context here it is: > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/ > > > > Could we please have a fact based discussion? > > > > The article you quote is not based on facts. > The link provided in the above article contains pretty detailed > reasoning justifying the fork of cdrkit from cdrtools. ?In reading the link above contains one single true claim: In the past, we, the Debian maintainers of cdrtools, had a good and mutually cooperative relationship with J?rg Schilling. He even commented on Debian bug reports, which is one of the best things an upstream maintainer can do. Naturally, there were occasionally disagreements, but this is normal. The rest contains a lot of accusations but not a single legal proof. Please read the relvent information I did provide already, see e.g.: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-June/msg00017.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-June/msg00019.html J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Fri Jun 12 20:47:56 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:47:56 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <143f0f6c0906121330q2418e472nc7c5f5f188811441@mail.gmail.com> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32B457.7060107@gmail.com> <4a32b959.5VqzLiS78/35URYf%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121330q2418e472nc7c5f5f188811441@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4a32befc.V6h2OKu0gB32Xb/d%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Christofer C. Bell" wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Joerg > Schilling wrote: > > > > I am not going to re-introduce a license that acording to the private > > interpretation from the initiator of the fork is not a valid OSS license, > > so the GPL is no option. > > Where do you get the idea that the Debian maintainers feel the GPL is > not a valid OSS license? They've not maintained that either the GPL The claims and GPL interpretations from initiators of the fork are in conflict with the OpenSource Definition from: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php If you follow these claims, you first would need to remove the GPL from the list of approved OSS licenses and later you would need to claim that License combinations seen on Linux (e.g. a GPL program uses a LGPL libc) cannot be legally distributed. I however _do_ believe that the GPL is an an approved and valid OSS license and for this reason, there is no problem with the mentioned GPL LGPL combinations and of course with GPL and CDDL also. I recommend you to read these articles: http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GPL.PDF http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf They explain very detailed why there is no problem in cdrtools. Note: I was part of the discussion in the 1980s that resulted in making the GPL compliant with the reality. I thus know why GPL programs have been made compatible to any independend library under any license. BTW: The FSF of course knows about this fact and for this reason did not sue Veritas for distributing a GNU tar derivate that was distributed together with binary only closed source libraries it was linked against. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From frankly3d at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 21:12:59 2009 From: frankly3d at gmail.com (Frank Murphy) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:12:59 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> On 12/06/09 21:33, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > The rest contains a lot of accusations but not a single legal proof. > > Please read the relvent information I did provide already, see e.g.: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-June/msg00017.html > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-June/msg00019.html > > J?rg > http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2007-July/001065.html This message is from a lawyer. Frank -- jabber | msn | google-talk | skype: frankly3d (Skype will be scrapped 1st July 2009) http://www.frankly3d.com Mailing-List Reply to: Mailing-List From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Fri Jun 12 21:27:21 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:27:21 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Frank Murphy wrote: > On 12/06/09 21:33, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > > The rest contains a lot of accusations but not a single legal proof. > > > > Please read the relvent information I did provide already, see e.g.: > > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-June/msg00017.html > > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-June/msg00019.html > http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2007-July/001065.html > > This message is from a lawyer. You are mistaken: Patent attorneys are not lawyers. The article you quoted in addition does not contain useful or valid legal theories. It just quotes a claim written by a laymen. Please read this: http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf It gives valid legal theories for all claims and it explains why there is no problem. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From frankly3d at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 22:16:26 2009 From: frankly3d at gmail.com (Frank Murphy) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:16:26 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4A32D3BA.4010002@gmail.com> On 12/06/09 22:27, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Frank Murphy wrote: > Please read this: > > http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf > Why, they didn't write the GPL. Give me a lawyer from the GPL Copyright holders. you may have then have something worth peoples time to read. Until then this stands: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#CDDL Frank -- jabber | msn | google-talk | skype: frankly3d (Skype will be scrapped 1st July 2009) http://www.frankly3d.com Mailing-List Reply to: Mailing-List From christofer.c.bell at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 22:18:08 2009 From: christofer.c.bell at gmail.com (Christofer C. Bell) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:18:08 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <143f0f6c0906121518i524b7e11t78b0484983ff2c0e@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Frank Murphy wrote: > >> http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2007-July/001065.html >> >> This message is from a lawyer. > > You are mistaken: Patent attorneys are not lawyers. Now you're talking nonsense. Patent attorneys are most definitely lawyers. That's what an attorney *is* (a lawyer)[1]. > The article you quoted in addition does not contain useful or valid legal > theories. It just quotes a claim written by a laymen. > > Please read this: > > ? ? ? ?http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf > > > It gives valid legal theories for all claims and it explains why there is no > problem. So far I've read the first 1/3 of the document and everything I've read disagrees with your position. The other documents you've provided to back up your position are written by you and are filled with the same rants you've posted here about how you personally dislike the Debian maintainers of cdrkit, how you feel the FSF's interpretation of *their own license* is bunk, how you dislike that cdrkit is "missing features" and "contains bugs", and how you really really want everyone to use cdrtools instead. Here's my interpretation: You made a bad call when you decided to relicense your code under a GPL-incompatible CDDL license. As a result, receivers of older versions of your code, which is under the GPL, decided to fork the code and continue to use the GPL license for their work. This really gets under your skin so you embark on a campaign to smear the names of the people who forked your software, cast doubt on the legality of their fork (despite *overwhelming* evidence you are mistaken - from the authors of both licenses), and otherwise "encourage" people to abandon cdrkit in favor of your own work, cdrtools. In support of this campaign, you post legal opinion provided by Lawrence Rosen[2], an attorney at law, former General Counsel for the Open Software Initiative and an advisor to the Apache Software Foundation, Python project, and the Free Standards Group[3]. Ironically, his legal opinion (note, he *is* a lawyer and thus qualified to give legal advice) disagrees with your position[4]. His position is that work, when combined with a GPL licensed work, must be licensed under the GPL. Since The opinions of a patent attorney are provided, also disagreeing with your position, so you claim that patent attorneys are not lawyers, a claim that flies in the face of reason. Regardless of your personal opinions, the GPL is very clear that the Debian maintainers you hold in such low esteem are well within their rights to fork cdrtools, to refuse include cdrtools in Debian, and are free to modify and use your original GPL licensed code in their works. Your personal opinions do not matter. Nothing illegal is going on. Your license is not being violated (after all, you chose to originally use the GPL). People are free to choose not to use your software. You may not like this, that's too bad. You keep changing the playing field to try to justify your position: the FSF doesn't know what they're talking about and should be ignored, patent attorneys are not lawyers, etc, etc. The assumption that everyone is operating under is that "the CDDL and GPL are incompatible and works licensed under each cannot be legally linked together." This assumption is not going to change no matter how much you push your own views[5]. If you want cdrtools to be used, then you have a choice: you can relicense it under the GPL or or other GPL-compatible license, or you can choose to accept that your software isn't going to be used. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/attorney [2] http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Rosen [4] http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf [5] http://osdir.com/ml/redhat.fedora.advisory-board/2006-08/msg00226.html (note the author) -- Chris From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Fri Jun 12 22:43:35 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:43:35 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4A32D3BA.4010002@gmail.com> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32D3BA.4010002@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4a32da17.Nekslz+uUBU8mWw2%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Frank Murphy wrote: > On 12/06/09 22:27, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Frank Murphy wrote: > > > Please read this: > > > > http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf > > > > Why, they didn't write the GPL. But Rosen gives useful and cleanly legal based explanations. > Give me a lawyer from the GPL Copyright holders. The FSF has no relevence in this case as the FSF does not hold any Copyright on the related code. The text on the FSF web pages was written by laymen and does not contain legal based explanations. If you have legal experiences, you are free to discuss real problem but it does not help to see just repeated claims from laymen that have no relation to the cdrtools project. I am sorry - I was in hope that this is a legal mailing list. I was in hope to get in contact with people who know enough to be able to have a fact based discussion. What I see is laymen that quote claims written by laymen. RedHat and Fedora have a serious problem because they publish an undistributable fork instead of the legal original. As I mentioned, I believe that RedHat has become a victim of a non-cooperative downstream maintainer. Now I have informed RedHat and in case that RedHat does not correct the mistakes from the past, things look different. Is RedHat a member of the OSS community or is RedHat part of the agressions agasinst OSS? J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From christofer.c.bell at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 22:56:38 2009 From: christofer.c.bell at gmail.com (Christofer C. Bell) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:56:38 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4a32da17.Nekslz+uUBU8mWw2%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32D3BA.4010002@gmail.com> <4a32da17.Nekslz+uUBU8mWw2%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <143f0f6c0906121556y60bb7c2fgc4f1f92029bc061c@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Joerg > > The FSF has no relevence in this case as the FSF does not hold > any Copyright on the related code. The text on the FSF web pages > was written by laymen and does not contain legal based explanations. Please take this as constructive criticism. This statement here is why no one is taking you seriously. You claim the FSF has no relevance despite the fact that you used *their* license. The FSF is full of lawyers in whose opinion *their* license says is not compatible with the CDDL and thus you are mistaken when you say it is. You also claim that cdrkit is "illegal". Your older cdrtools is licensed under the GPL, the derivative work, cdrkit, is likewise, in compliance with the GPL, also licensed under the GPL. Saying it's illegal is absurd on its face. This, Joerg, is why no one is taking you seriously in this discussion. Again, please accept this as constructive criticism and use this as a jumping off point to re-evaluate your arguments and frame them in a way that people can take seriously. Thank you. -- Chris From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Fri Jun 12 22:58:13 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:58:13 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <143f0f6c0906121518i524b7e11t78b0484983ff2c0e@mail.gmail.com> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121518i524b7e11t78b0484983ff2c0e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4a32dd85.uWJbyJPapAkwlDKe%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Christofer C. Bell" wrote: > > Please read this: > > > > ? ? ? ?http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf > > > > > > It gives valid legal theories for all claims and it explains why there is no > > problem. > > So far I've read the first 1/3 of the document and everything I've > read disagrees with your position. The other documents you've Or in other words, you have no arguments. If you have any valid arguments you are welcome. As long as you don't, I see no way to continue the discussion as it will not take us any further. It is a shame that laymen repeat claims about supposed license incompatibility without giving any evidence. It is a shame that people still quote unproven claims from the the initiator of agressions against the OSS project cdrtools. Is there any hope to have a fact based discussion in this mailing list? In other words: if you really believe that there is a license problem you should be able to name it and to prove it. BTW: Just giving vague signs without any evidence is usually called "FUD"... J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Fri Jun 12 23:10:06 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:10:06 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <143f0f6c0906121556y60bb7c2fgc4f1f92029bc061c@mail.gmail.com> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32D3BA.4010002@gmail.com> <4a32da17.Nekslz+uUBU8mWw2%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121556y60bb7c2fgc4f1f92029bc061c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4a32e04e.E0BUlVgLaVofAN5K%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Christofer C. Bell" wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Joerg > > > > The FSF has no relevence in this case as the FSF does not hold > > any Copyright on the related code. The text on the FSF web pages > > was written by laymen and does not contain legal based explanations. > > Please take this as constructive criticism. This statement here is > why no one is taking you seriously. You claim the FSF has no > relevance despite the fact that you used *their* license. The FSF is > full of lawyers in whose opinion *their* license says is not > compatible with the CDDL and thus you are mistaken when you say it is. I did talk with one of them (Eben Moglen) and he did confirm that the claims on the FSF web page are wrong. They are made for political reasons. > You also claim that cdrkit is "illegal". Your older cdrtools is > licensed under the GPL, the derivative work, cdrkit, is likewise, in > compliance with the GPL, also licensed under the GPL. Saying it's > illegal is absurd on its face. You do not listen to the facts, are you interested in a fact based discussion? If you are able to mention any valid legal agrument, you are of course welcome. For now, it seems that you are just one of the laymen that is unable to give any proof for his claims. If you believe that there is a license problem in the original software, use valid quotes from the original GPL text. Unfortunately, you quote claims from the FSF that are in conflict with the GPL text. The code in question is licensed under the GPL. The GPL FAQ from the FSF you did quote is no license text and it is in conflict with the GPL text. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From christofer.c.bell at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 23:10:47 2009 From: christofer.c.bell at gmail.com (Christofer C. Bell) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:10:47 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4a32dd85.uWJbyJPapAkwlDKe%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121518i524b7e11t78b0484983ff2c0e@mail.gmail.com> <4a32dd85.uWJbyJPapAkwlDKe%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <143f0f6c0906121610t57714460j9a2dff15a69cd45d@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Or in other words, you have no arguments. > > If you have any valid arguments you are welcome. As long as you don't, I see > no way to continue the discussion as it will not take us any further. http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html I'm sure you can find where you're mentioned in that piece. I'll point it out to make it easy: "Sadly, some people don't learn. Essentially the same thing happened in 2006, when the author of "cdrtools" tried to switch to a GPL-incompatible license; all major distributors started and switched to a new project (cdrkit) instead. The original cdrtools suite is a set of tools for writing information to CDs and DVDs. In this case, J?rg Schilling (author of cdrtools) changed his license from the GPL to the GPL-incompatible CDDL. J?rg Schilling claimed that there was no issue, but this is simply nonsense. J?rg is not a lawyer, while all lawyers who examined the issue, as well as the developers of both the CDDL and GPL licenses, agreed that the licenses are incompatible." The sad fact for you is that we trust the lawyers more than we trust you. To elaborate, again from the same piece: "At this point, almost no one cares what the original author does with his version; the version people actually use is controlled by others." -- Chris From christofer.c.bell at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 23:17:53 2009 From: christofer.c.bell at gmail.com (Christofer C. Bell) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:17:53 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4a32e04e.E0BUlVgLaVofAN5K%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32D3BA.4010002@gmail.com> <4a32da17.Nekslz+uUBU8mWw2%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121556y60bb7c2fgc4f1f92029bc061c@mail.gmail.com> <4a32e04e.E0BUlVgLaVofAN5K%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <143f0f6c0906121617i47784561hc9f725dfdac0b1bd@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > I did talk with one of them (Eben Moglen) and he did confirm that the claims > on the FSF web page are wrong. They are made for political reasons. Please provide a link to Mr. Moglen's opinion. That would clear things right up. > You do not listen to the facts, are you interested in a fact based discussion? Everyone here is interested in facts. You've been presenting your layman's legal opinion (ie; not legal advice). Folks have been posting the advice of lawyers (ie; can be construed as legal advice). The solution to your problem rests in your hands. Obviously, no matter how right you may be, your arguments are falling on deaf ears. It doesn't matter that you feel the GPL and CDDL are compatible. It doesn't matter that Eben Moglen may have privately told you that they are compatible. They are generally accepted as incompatible and so ... they are. The solution is obvious, relicense cdrtools in a way that is generally accepted as GPL compatible. Until you are willing and able to do so, you're wasting everyone's time (including your own). Which do you prefer to enjoy? Your "rightness" in the face of the world telling you that you are wrong or having the world at large enjoy using software you have created? Again, the solution is in your hands. -- Chris From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Fri Jun 12 23:25:16 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:25:16 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <143f0f6c0906121610t57714460j9a2dff15a69cd45d@mail.gmail.com> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121518i524b7e11t78b0484983ff2c0e@mail.gmail.com> <4a32dd85.uWJbyJPapAkwlDKe%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121610t57714460j9a2dff15a69cd45d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4a32e3dc.LHyidjB0TbZHk5AV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Christofer C. Bell" wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Joerg > Schilling wrote: > > > > Or in other words, you have no arguments. > > > > If you have any valid arguments you are welcome. As long as you don't, I see > > no way to continue the discussion as it will not take us any further. > > http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html I'm sure you can You are funny - you just quote another piece of FUD. Do you have any real argument? So far, none of the answering persons did send any useful argument. This seems to verify that you don't have any arguments to prove your claims or that you are unable or unwilling to have a fact based discussion. The real bad thing I see from this mail exchange is that there seem to be many people in this list that ignore the demands from the users of the code and that don't care that the users get defective and undistributable code although there is perfectly legal and working original code. The way you do the discussion lets me believe that you are unimportant and not the right person to talk to. You continue to send no facts. This sems to verify that you know that you are unable to prove your claim that there is a proble with the license of the original code. If you continue with this personal opinion, I expect you to give an explanation. Is there no RedHat lawyer in this list? Is there no people interested in OSS on this list? J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Fri Jun 12 23:27:23 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:27:23 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <143f0f6c0906121617i47784561hc9f725dfdac0b1bd@mail.gmail.com> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32D3BA.4010002@gmail.com> <4a32da17.Nekslz+uUBU8mWw2%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121556y60bb7c2fgc4f1f92029bc061c@mail.gmail.com> <4a32e04e.E0BUlVgLaVofAN5K%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121617i47784561hc9f725dfdac0b1bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4a32e45b./Vyq88xY7waOuGGM%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Christofer C. Bell" wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Joerg > Schilling wrote: > > > > I did talk with one of them (Eben Moglen) and he did confirm that the claims > > on the FSF web page are wrong. They are made for political reasons. > > Please provide a link to Mr. Moglen's opinion. That would clear > things right up. > > > You do not listen to the facts, are you interested in a fact based discussion? > > Everyone here is interested in facts. You've been presenting your So please prove this and send some facts. So far you did just send quotes from laymen that do not contain any fact you may base a discussion on. You claim that there is a problem with the original code, so prove this claim or admit that you are wrong. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From frankly3d at gmail.com Sat Jun 13 07:10:19 2009 From: frankly3d at gmail.com (Frank Murphy) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:10:19 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4a32e3dc.LHyidjB0TbZHk5AV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121518i524b7e11t78b0484983ff2c0e@mail.gmail.com> <4a32dd85.uWJbyJPapAkwlDKe%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121610t57714460j9a2dff15a69cd45d@mail.gmail.com> <4a32e3dc.LHyidjB0TbZHk5AV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4A3350DB.1030902@gmail.com> On 13/06/09 00:25, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Is there no RedHat lawyer in this list? If you believe you have a case. Hire, a lawyer. No one is stopping you. Why should anyone else supply you one. > > Is there no people interested in OSS on this list? > > J?rg > I Believe most would me more in interested in FL(legal)OSS My opinions, a layman like you. Frank From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Sat Jun 13 10:10:48 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:10:48 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4A3350DB.1030902@gmail.com> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121518i524b7e11t78b0484983ff2c0e@mail.gmail.com> <4a32dd85.uWJbyJPapAkwlDKe%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121610t57714460j9a2dff15a69cd45d@mail.gmail.com> <4a32e3dc.LHyidjB0TbZHk5AV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A3350DB.1030902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4a337b28.O/KdxrRgd90iXW8l%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Frank Murphy wrote: > On 13/06/09 00:25, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > > > Is there no RedHat lawyer in this list? > > > If you believe you have a case. > Hire, a lawyer. > No one is stopping you. > Why should anyone else supply you one. You seem to have a serous problem with understanding the topic. I don't need a lawyer, RedHat and Fedora need a lawyer because RadHat and Fedoray have a serious legal problem that results from blindly beliveing the wrong people..... This problem needs to be solved and it cannot be solved by people who neither have a clue, nor interest or influence to solve the Problem at RedHat's site. So, as long as you are unable to fetch the right people please stay silent in this discussion. As mentioned before, it does not make sene to talk with people who are not interested or able to have a fact based discussion. I am only interested in a fact based discussion...... J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From frankly3d at gmail.com Sat Jun 13 10:24:27 2009 From: frankly3d at gmail.com (Frank Murphy) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:24:27 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4a337b28.O/KdxrRgd90iXW8l%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121518i524b7e11t78b0484983ff2c0e@mail.gmail.com> <4a32dd85.uWJbyJPapAkwlDKe%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121610t57714460j9a2dff15a69cd45d@mail.gmail.com> <4a32e3dc.LHyidjB0TbZHk5AV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A3350DB.1030902@gmail.com> <4a337b28.O/KdxrRgd90iXW8l%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4A337E5B.4030406@gmail.com> On 13/06/09 11:10, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Frank Murphy wrote: > >> On 13/06/09 00:25, Joerg Schilling wrote: >> >>> >>> Is there no RedHat lawyer in this list? >> >> >> If you believe you have a case. >> Hire, a lawyer. >> No one is stopping you. >> Why should anyone else supply you one. > > You seem to have a serous problem with understanding the topic. You not understanding, is the topic. If you had a problem wirh RH\Fedora, I' sure there would be a Cease and Desist already applied for. > > I don't need a lawyer, RedHat and Fedora need a lawyer because RadHat and > Fedoray have a serious legal problem that results from blindly beliveing > the wrong people..... - Not as far as I, or any reasonable person can see. > > This problem needs to be solved and it cannot be solved by people who neither > have a clue, Talk about the kettle. nor interest or influence to solve the Problem at RedHat's site. > So, as long as you are unable to fetch the right people please stay silent in > this discussion. You're a laymen, so am I. We're equals. You speak, I or any other equal is not prevented from replying. If you want to speak to a lawyer, hire one. > > As mentioned before, it does not make sene to talk with people who are not > interested or able to have a fact based discussion. Then why are you talking fantasy. I am only interested in > a fact based discussion...... > Not that anyone has seen so far. Just wishful thinking on your part, because the world has moved on. Frank From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Sat Jun 13 10:48:24 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:48:24 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4A337E5B.4030406@gmail.com> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121518i524b7e11t78b0484983ff2c0e@mail.gmail.com> <4a32dd85.uWJbyJPapAkwlDKe%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121610t57714460j9a2dff15a69cd45d@mail.gmail.com> <4a32e3dc.LHyidjB0TbZHk5AV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A3350DB.1030902@gmail.com> <4a337b28.O/KdxrRgd90iXW8l%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A337E5B.4030406@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4a3383f8.fmV4QIAOr/En8I/J%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Frank Murphy wrote: > On 13/06/09 11:10, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Frank Murphy wrote: > > > >> On 13/06/09 00:25, Joerg Schilling wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Is there no RedHat lawyer in this list? > >> > >> > >> If you believe you have a case. > >> Hire, a lawyer. > >> No one is stopping you. > >> Why should anyone else supply you one. > > > > You seem to have a serous problem with understanding the topic. > > You not understanding, is the topic. OK, it seems that I need to ignore you in future unless you show interest in a fact based diuscussion. So far, I did see from you only unproven claims and quotes to unproven claims from other laymen. These claims, seen from you, are even in conflict with the GPL text. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From frankly3d at gmail.com Sat Jun 13 10:52:49 2009 From: frankly3d at gmail.com (Frank Murphy) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:52:49 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4a3383f8.fmV4QIAOr/En8I/J%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <9l63f1l19j.fsf@vorcha.compsoc.com> <4a32b044.y7tUF2YSMjoMexjR%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121317j794c8724l78676a52e6b325a4@mail.gmail.com> <4a32bb85.wnZ8P18l8SlKmpof%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A32C4DB.1080503@gmail.com> <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121518i524b7e11t78b0484983ff2c0e@mail.gmail.com> <4a32dd85.uWJbyJPapAkwlDKe%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121610t57714460j9a2dff15a69cd45d@mail.gmail.com> <4a32e3dc.LHyidjB0TbZHk5AV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A3350DB.1030902@gmail.com> <4a337b28.O/KdxrRgd90iXW8l%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A337E5B.4030406@gmail.com> <4a3383f8.fmV4QIAOr/En8I/J%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4A338501.3060402@gmail.com> On 13/06/09 11:48, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Frank Murphy wrote: > >> On 13/06/09 11:10, Joerg Schilling wrote: >>> Frank Murphy wrote: >>> >>>> On 13/06/09 00:25, Joerg Schilling wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is there no RedHat lawyer in this list? >>>> >>>> >>>> If you believe you have a case. >>>> Hire, a lawyer. >>>> No one is stopping you. >>>> Why should anyone else supply you one. >>> >>> You seem to have a serous problem with understanding the topic. >> >> You not understanding, is the topic. > > OK, it seems that I need to ignore you in future unless you show interest > in a fact based diuscussion. When you start one, lmk > > So far, I did see from you only unproven claims Kettle. and quotes to unproven > claims from other laymen. These claims, seen from you, are even in conflict > with the GPL text. > One layman to another. Frank From stickster at gmail.com Sat Jun 13 11:36:13 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:36:13 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4A338501.3060402@gmail.com> References: <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121518i524b7e11t78b0484983ff2c0e@mail.gmail.com> <4a32dd85.uWJbyJPapAkwlDKe%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121610t57714460j9a2dff15a69cd45d@mail.gmail.com> <4a32e3dc.LHyidjB0TbZHk5AV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A3350DB.1030902@gmail.com> <4a337b28.O/KdxrRgd90iXW8l%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A337E5B.4030406@gmail.com> <4a3383f8.fmV4QIAOr/En8I/J%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A338501.3060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090613113613.GG9646@localhost.localdomain> Please stop this ridiculous thread of bickering. It serves no useful purpose at this point. Our main Fedora Legal liaison, Spot, is on vacation right now. Although we do have actual lawyers who read this list, the level to which the discussion has dropped makes it ever more unlikely that any of them will respond directly. Spot will review this issue when he returns and we'll decide then what next action is warranted. Thank you for your consideration. Paul From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Sat Jun 13 13:38:54 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:38:54 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <20090613113613.GG9646@localhost.localdomain> References: <4a32c839.hRBPK/BsMgUBtSKm%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121518i524b7e11t78b0484983ff2c0e@mail.gmail.com> <4a32dd85.uWJbyJPapAkwlDKe%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <143f0f6c0906121610t57714460j9a2dff15a69cd45d@mail.gmail.com> <4a32e3dc.LHyidjB0TbZHk5AV%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A3350DB.1030902@gmail.com> <4a337b28.O/KdxrRgd90iXW8l%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A337E5B.4030406@gmail.com> <4a3383f8.fmV4QIAOr/En8I/J%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A338501.3060402@gmail.com> <20090613113613.GG9646@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4a33abee.He0npheaUoCObUNP%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Paul W. Frields" wrote: > Please stop this ridiculous thread of bickering. It serves no useful > purpose at this point. Thank you for reprimanding the people who are responsible for tearing down the level of the discussion. I am in hope that the lawyers understand that I pointed to a serious problem at RedHats and Feroras site that needs to be solved. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Jun 24 21:58:37 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:58:37 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [Fedora-packaging] Digging up an old dead thread ... In-Reply-To: <4A426EF0.6030102@lonetwin.net> References: <4A426EF0.6030102@lonetwin.net> Message-ID: <4A42A18D.3010602@redhat.com> On 06/24/2009 02:22 PM, steve wrote: > Now, I have 2 questions for fedora-legal: > > a. Specific to the last two packages (ldd_pdf and javanotes) -- The > upstream license for both of those specify the license version number > (CC-BY-SA version 2 and 2.5), however, the page that lists acceptable > licenses for Fedora[1] does not provide any version numbers. So, should > I modify the License tag or should the wiki page be updated ? No, you just don't need to specify the version. We only specify the version in the license tag when there is a significant change in compatibility or there are versions of a license which are non-free. In the case of CC-BY-SA, all versions of that license are considered the same, and all are free. Just use: License: CC-BY-SA for all instances of the CC-BY-SA, regardless of versioning. > b. About other CC licensed content -- A lot of the available content is > licensed with the Non-Commercial restriction, which is considered as a > Bad License according to the wiki page on licensing. Why is > non-commercial only restriction considered bad ? ...and is there an > alternative to including this in the official Fedora repository -- for > instance the rpm fusion repository ? Commercial use restrictions make a license non-free, which is why they are not acceptable in Fedora. ~spot From Jochen at herr-schmitt.de Thu Jun 25 17:01:36 2009 From: Jochen at herr-schmitt.de (Jochen Schmitt) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:01:36 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] [Help] License question about poppler-data Message-ID: <4A43AD70.7080807@herr-schmitt.de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hallo, someone have mark the following review request with FE-LEGAL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507675 The license says, that the content is redistributable but you have not the permission to modified the content. Because the package contains only content, that license is acceptable for fedora from my point of view. It may be nice, if anyone can aggree with my statement. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkpDrWQACgkQT2AHK6txfgxQ3gCgl+l94h8uK/9j4w0P7PvenZW/ iPUAn1Pb+xUnX/rUiOwesG0v+bkM2h5a =4sw/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From chkr at fedoraproject.org Sat Jun 27 12:04:27 2009 From: chkr at fedoraproject.org (Christian Krause) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:04:27 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] BSD license? Message-ID: <4A460ACB.1000900@fedoraproject.org> [ I'm resending this mail since it looks like the first one got lost. ] Hi, I'm reviewing the package xscope and I'm unsure whether the supplied license [1] can be considered 100% as the BSD license (the wording is different to the examples in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD ) Thanks in advance! [1] http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/app/xscope/tree/COPYING Best regards, Christian From tcallawa at redhat.com Sun Jun 28 07:08:53 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:08:53 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] BSD license? In-Reply-To: <4A460ACB.1000900@fedoraproject.org> References: <4A460ACB.1000900@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4A471705.1060003@redhat.com> On 06/27/2009 08:04 AM, Christian Krause wrote: > [ I'm resending this mail since it looks like the first one got lost. ] > > Hi, > > I'm reviewing the package xscope and I'm unsure whether the supplied > license [1] can be considered 100% as the BSD license (the wording is > different to the examples in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD ) > > Thanks in advance! > > [1] http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/app/xscope/tree/COPYING Well, the reason the wordingof that license doesn't match the BSD license examples is because it isn't BSD, but rather, the MIT license: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT ~spot From frankly3d at gmail.com Mon Jun 29 07:38:45 2009 From: frankly3d at gmail.com (Frank Murphy) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:38:45 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono Message-ID: <4A486F85.7000109@gmail.com> Is there any contingency plans in place, for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost? FesCo? Legal? Is there any searchable parameter, to work out what something is coded in\depending on (code wise) This is not the normal "**** mono" post. I hope, I worded it enough, that my concern is: Fedora and *All* our Users (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#What_is_Fedora.3F) Frank -- jabber | msn | skype: frankly3d http://www.frankly3d.com From fabian.deutsch at gmx.de Mon Jun 29 07:47:20 2009 From: fabian.deutsch at gmx.de (Fabian Deutsch) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:47:20 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono In-Reply-To: <4A486F85.7000109@gmail.com> References: <4A486F85.7000109@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1246261640.2521.0.camel@proprietary.local> > Is there any searchable parameter, > to work out what something is coded in\depending on (code wise) I suppose you can look for packages depending on mono-core. - fabian > > This is not the normal "**** mono" post. > I hope, I worded it enough, that my concern is: > Fedora and *All* our Users > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#What_is_Fedora.3F) > > Frank > > > -- > jabber | msn | skype: frankly3d > http://www.frankly3d.com > From jonstanley at gmail.com Mon Jun 29 14:42:29 2009 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:42:29 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono In-Reply-To: <4A486F85.7000109@gmail.com> References: <4A486F85.7000109@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Frank Murphy wrote: > Is there any contingency plans in place, > for a worst case scenario if C#, is lost? > FesCo? As Ajax said, the contingency plan would be "nuke from orbit", just as it is for any legally objectionable software in Fedora. However, I don't think there's anything to worry about here. The only reason that we ship mono *at all* is that we're covered by some OIN patents on it. I'm not sure which OIN patents those are, but essentially if Microsoft wants to pick that fight, we'll play their game. There is no benefit to Microsoft due to the "mutually assured destruction" principle. From notting at redhat.com Mon Jun 29 14:58:14 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:58:14 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono In-Reply-To: References: <4A486F85.7000109@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090629145814.GB32023@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Jon Stanley (jonstanley at gmail.com) said: > However, I don't think there's anything to worry about here. The only > reason that we ship mono *at all* is that we're covered by some OIN > patents on it. I'm not sure which OIN patents those are, but > essentially if Microsoft wants to pick that fight, ... it's not OIN patents, it's that mono is in the OIN list of protected packages. Just clarifying. Bill From kevin.kofler at chello.at Mon Jun 29 15:08:11 2009 From: kevin.kofler at chello.at (Kevin Kofler) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:08:11 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono References: <4A486F85.7000109@gmail.com> Message-ID: drago01 wrote: > Another don't use $LANGUAGE because its evil post from RMS. So what? His concerns are real. > ($LANGUAGE has been Java, Javascript and now C#). Java used to be non-Free, so of course it was bad to depend on it. Especially for those programs which didn't work with the implementations which were Free Software at the time (GCJ/Classpath-based stuff). I'm not familiar with the JavaScript story, but if he really recommended against using it, there was certainly a valid reason. Kevin Kofler From kevin.kofler at chello.at Mon Jun 29 15:29:04 2009 From: kevin.kofler at chello.at (Kevin Kofler) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:29:04 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono References: <4A486F85.7000109@gmail.com> Message-ID: drago01 wrote: > Saying mono is evil while having DotGNU seems odd to me > (http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/) He also recommends against using DotGNU to develop your new Free Software in (because of the same patent risk as for Mono). >> I'm not familiar with the JavaScript story, but if he really recommended >> against using it, there was certainly a valid reason. > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html That's a rant against web apps rather than against JavaScript as a language and I agree with that one too: web apps are a way to push proprietary software onto people who claim to use only Free Software. In most cases, a portion of the code runs on your browser (that's where JavaScript comes into play), but is often licensed under a proprietary license, another portion runs on the web server and is completely out of your control (so it's even more proprietary than the average proprietary software). If you're using a proprietary web app, you're NOT using Free Software, but proprietary software, even if the browser you're using is Free Software. Kevin Kofler From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jun 29 15:33:44 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:03:44 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono In-Reply-To: References: <4A486F85.7000109@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A48DED8.3050607@fedoraproject.org> On 06/29/2009 08:49 PM, drago01 wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> drago01 wrote: >>> Another don't use $LANGUAGE because its evil post from RMS. >> >> So what? His concerns are real. > > Depends on how you read them and whether you agree with him or not. > And for most cases I don't. > > Saying mono is evil while having DotGNU seems odd to me > (http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/) Did you even read the article? I don't see where FSF cliams mono is evil. Their position is far more nuanced than that. What FSF is suggesting is to treat Mono purely as a (legacy) compatibility layer and not use it for new applications. "This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used. The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk." Rahul From notting at redhat.com Mon Jun 29 16:10:45 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:10:45 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono In-Reply-To: References: <4A486F85.7000109@gmail.com> <20090629145814.GB32023@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090629161045.GE32653@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Seth Vidal (skvidal at fedoraproject.org) said: >>> However, I don't think there's anything to worry about here. The only >>> reason that we ship mono *at all* is that we're covered by some OIN >>> patents on it. I'm not sure which OIN patents those are, but >>> essentially if Microsoft wants to pick that fight, >> >> ... it's not OIN patents, it's that mono is in the OIN list of protected >> packages. Just clarifying. > > Does OIN cover the specific version we're carrying? I thought OIN was > version specific. It covers a specific version of a package, and the functionality provided by that version in any successive release of that package. So, even though libX11 was split out of the xorg-x11 package after the OIN package list was approved, it's still covered. Bill From kevin.kofler at chello.at Tue Jun 30 15:23:23 2009 From: kevin.kofler at chello.at (Kevin Kofler) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:23:23 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono References: <4A486F85.7000109@gmail.com> Message-ID: Matej Cepl wrote: > His point was that thousands of line of hardly obfuscated Javascript > (think Google Docs) is hard to recognize from binary-only distribution, > which I can see as pretty good argument. Right. The point isn't really about JavaScript the language, but about its integration into browsers and how it ends up used. It basically hides proprietary software in what users perceive as "content". Kevin Kofler