From thomasj at fedoraproject.org Fri May 1 17:14:20 2009 From: thomasj at fedoraproject.org (Thomas Janssen) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 19:14:20 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License check for new library for fedora Message-ID: Good day. I try to become a new packager for Fedora and face a license that needs to be checked. The Main package is Newsbeuter MIT/X license and the needed lib is "stfl" with a LGPLv3 license, supplemented by additional permissions. Following the license: GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, 29 June 2007 Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. This version of the GNU Lesser General Public License incorporates the terms and conditions of version 3 of the GNU General Public License, supplemented by the additional permissions listed below. 0. Additional Definitions. As used herein, "this License" refers to version 3 of the GNU Lesser General Public License, and the "GNU GPL" refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License. "The Library" refers to a covered work governed by this License, other than an Application or a Combined Work as defined below. An "Application" is any work that makes use of an interface provided by the Library, but which is not otherwise based on the Library. Defining a subclass of a class defined by the Library is deemed a mode of using an interface provided by the Library. A "Combined Work" is a work produced by combining or linking an Application with the Library. The particular version of the Library with which the Combined Work was made is also called the "Linked Version". The "Minimal Corresponding Source" for a Combined Work means the Corresponding Source for the Combined Work, excluding any source code for portions of the Combined Work that, considered in isolation, are based on the Application, and not on the Linked Version. The "Corresponding Application Code" for a Combined Work means the object code and/or source code for the Application, including any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the Combined Work from the Application, but excluding the System Libraries of the Combined Work. 1. Exception to Section 3 of the GNU GPL. You may convey a covered work under sections 3 and 4 of this License without being bound by section 3 of the GNU GPL. 2. Conveying Modified Versions. If you modify a copy of the Library, and, in your modifications, a facility refers to a function or data to be supplied by an Application that uses the facility (other than as an argument passed when the facility is invoked), then you may convey a copy of the modified version: a) under this License, provided that you make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the event an Application does not supply the function or data, the facility still operates, and performs whatever part of its purpose remains meaningful, or b) under the GNU GPL, with none of the additional permissions of this License applicable to that copy. 3. Object Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files. The object code form of an Application may incorporate material from a header file that is part of the Library. You may convey such object code under terms of your choice, provided that, if the incorporated material is not limited to numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, or small macros, inline functions and templates (ten or fewer lines in length), you do both of the following: a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. b) Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU GPL and this license document. 4. Combined Works. You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications, if you also do each of the following: a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the Combined Work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. b) Accompany the Combined Work with a copy of the GNU GPL and this license document. c) For a Combined Work that displays copyright notices during execution, include the copyright notice for the Library among these notices, as well as a reference directing the user to the copies of the GNU GPL and this license document. d) Do one of the following: 0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source. 1) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time a copy of the Library already present on the user's computer system, and (b) will operate properly with a modified version of the Library that is interface-compatible with the Linked Version. e) Provide Installation Information, but only if you would otherwise be required to provide such information under section 6 of the GNU GPL, and only to the extent that such information is necessary to install and execute a modified version of the Combined Work produced by recombining or relinking the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version. (If you use option 4d0, the Installation Information must accompany the Minimal Corresponding Source and Corresponding Application Code. If you use option 4d1, you must provide the Installation Information in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.) 5. Combined Libraries. You may place library facilities that are a work based on the Library side by side in a single library together with other library facilities that are not Applications and are not covered by this License, and convey such a combined library under terms of your choice, if you do both of the following: a) Accompany the combined library with a copy of the same work based on the Library, uncombined with any other library facilities, conveyed under the terms of this License. b) Give prominent notice with the combined library that part of it is a work based on the Library, and explaining where to find the accompanying uncombined form of the same work. 6. Revised Versions of the GNU Lesser General Public License. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU Lesser General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Library as you received it specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU Lesser General Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that published version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Library as you received it does not specify a version number of the GNU Lesser General Public License, you may choose any version of the GNU Lesser General Public License ever published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Library as you received it specifies that a proxy can decide whether future versions of the GNU Lesser General Public License shall apply, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of any version is permanent authorization for you to choose that version for the Library. This is obviously my first post to this list. So i will wait until i get an answer. Thanks for your time. Thomas Janssen -- LG Thomas Dubium sapientiae initium From aoliva at redhat.com Tue May 5 01:15:46 2009 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 22:15:46 -0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: <49F9A2CC.4010808@redhat.com> (Tom Callaway's message of "Thu\, 30 Apr 2009 09\:08\:28 -0400") References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> <49F8918E.40207@redhat.com> <49F8AEB8.9040401@redhat.com> <49F8D00F.40709@redhat.com> <49F91327.1070306@redhat.com> <49F9A2CC.4010808@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Apr 30, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > It took you several emails to accomplish this, and I just don't have > enough time to chase "ghost" issues where your personal stance on > licensing differs from Fedora's. I have a high degree of confidence at > this point that you understand the definitions of Fedora licensing policies. I'm pretty sure the definition of Fedora licensing policies does not make room for blatant copyright violation, distributing code under GPL+restrictions that is derived from GPL code. And, again, the GPL violation is not firmware, it's driver code (stuff that runs on the primary CPU, per Fedora's definition), in case it isn't clear yet. > When information is presented calmly, clearly, and without rhetoric, I > continue to look into it. Thank you. I'd appreciate your pointing out where you saw this thing you refer to as rhetoric. If any of us two is guilty of jumping to conclusions, abusing rhetoric and aggressive tone, it's not me. You thought I was going back to an old discussion, and overreacted. Apologies accepted :-) but please try not to do that again. I know I've failed that myself in the past, but it is possible to change. Don't react to the ghosts. > To assert that I am either failing, or at risk of failing in that task > is rather insulting, especially given a lack of evidence in that area. The ?I'm done with it? in response to the specific information about the problem was quite a shocking confession of your unwillingness to deal with this particular copyright infringment issue. Do you understand the consequences of infringing copyrights of code licensed under the GPLv2, such as Linux? Are you comfortable with Fedora's wilfull loss of its license to distribute Linux, and its inducement for third parties that redistribute Fedora to lose theirs? Are you comfortable with the idea of having to beg thousands of developers for a new license? And having all of our mirrors and redistributors do the same before they can be legal redistributors again? > It is also worth considering that the Linux kernel, like X.org and > texlive, is a rather special case. Neither X.org nor texlive are under the GPL. > Our best recourse is to work with the upstream to address these > issues. Progress continues to be made in this area. Good. I look forward to seeing progress in rejecting code whose copyright holders derived it from Linux, but refuse to offer it under terms that are compatible with the licensing terms of Linux, rather than becoming their hostages and supporting their attack on our communities and our values. Best, -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue May 5 01:53:10 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 21:53:10 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> <49F8918E.40207@redhat.com> <49F8AEB8.9040401@redhat.com> <49F8D00F.40709@redhat.com> <49F91327.1070306@redhat.com> <49F9A2CC.4010808@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49FF9C06.7000706@redhat.com> On 05/04/2009 09:15 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > I'm pretty sure the definition of Fedora licensing policies does not > make room for blatant copyright violation, distributing code under > GPL+restrictions that is derived from GPL code. And, again, the GPL > violation is not firmware, it's driver code (stuff that runs on the > primary CPU, per Fedora's definition), in case it isn't clear yet. So, to make sure I'm clear (I'm ignoring all of the parts where you fail to be specific, and where you put words in my mouth), the situation you're concerned about is one where: Someone (you failed to mention who) stole copyrighted code (from someone else, again, you fail to mention who), then added restrictions to the derived work. I thought maybe you were talking about drivers/net/bnx2_fw.h. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=drivers/net/bnx2_fw.h;hb=HEAD But no, everything seems okay there. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=drivers/net/bnx2x_link.h;hb=HEAD This has an odd licensing clause, specifically: * Notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances may you combine this * software in any way with any other Broadcom software provided under a * license other than the GPL, without Broadcom's express prior written * consent. Is this what you're talking about? (And if so, why couldn't you just &*#$ing say so?) If it is, this isn't a copyright violation. It's very strange, and I could see the argument that it makes that piece of code non-free, but it is probably something that we could try to address with Broadcom and the owners of the code space, (specifically, Yaniv Rosner ). Have you reached out to him about your concerns? See how useful specific details are? :/ ~spot From aoliva at redhat.com Tue May 5 02:23:06 2009 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 23:23:06 -0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: <49FF9C06.7000706@redhat.com> (Tom Callaway's message of "Mon\, 04 May 2009 21\:53\:10 -0400") References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> <49F8918E.40207@redhat.com> <49F8AEB8.9040401@redhat.com> <49F8D00F.40709@redhat.com> <49F91327.1070306@redhat.com> <49F9A2CC.4010808@redhat.com> <49FF9C06.7000706@redhat.com> Message-ID: On May 4, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > Is this what you're talking about? (And if so, why couldn't you just > &*#$ing say so?) Message-ID: [...] it's a driver under a license that's not even compatible with GPLv2? Message-ID: This is about [...] (ii) combining *driver* (rather than firmware) code that's under GPL-incompatible terms with the GPLed code in the rest of the kernel. Message-ID: The one situation in which there are derived works is that the driver B is derived from Linux, but then it sets forth an additional restriction, which is incompatible with the GPL that governs the creation and distribution of derived works. Message-ID: 1. combining GPLed Linux code with *driver* (!= firmware) code derived from GPLed code that adds incompatible restrictions => GPL violation, enforceable by *any* Linux copyright holder > If it is, this isn't a copyright violation. Distributing this piece of code derived from GPLed code under any license other than the GPL is not in compliance with the conditions set forth in the GPL for the creation and distribution of derived works. As such, the distribution is unauthorized, and therefore copyright infringement. > It's very strange, and I could see the argument that it makes that > piece of code non-free, I don't know whether it's non-Free, but that's besides the point. > but it is probably something that we could try to address with > Broadcom and the owners of the code space, (specifically, Yaniv Rosner > ). Have you reached out to him about your > concerns? Nope. > See how useful specific details are? :/ Not really. All I see is how little of what I wrote in this thread you actually paid attention to before issuing your opinions :-( The specific details were in the first post. grep is not that hard to use. Heck, even a web search for the licensing terms I quoted would have found all the specific details that, honestly, I was baffled you weren't aware of. So much for my trying to anonimize the guilty to avoid undesirable reaction. Thanks (not) for pretty much forcing me to change that, just to feed your... What is it? Pride? Laziness? Distrust? :-( -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue May 5 11:20:15 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 07:20:15 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> <49F8918E.40207@redhat.com> <49F8AEB8.9040401@redhat.com> <49F8D00F.40709@redhat.com> <49F91327.1070306@redhat.com> <49F9A2CC.4010808@redhat.com> <49FF9C06.7000706@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A0020EF.8030206@redhat.com> On 05/04/2009 10:23 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> but it is probably something that we could try to address with >> > Broadcom and the owners of the code space, (specifically, Yaniv Rosner >> > ). Have you reached out to him about your >> > concerns? > > Nope. Perhaps you should do that as the logical next step. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue May 5 13:14:31 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 09:14:31 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License check for new library for fedora In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A003BB7.90403@redhat.com> On 05/01/2009 01:14 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote: > Good day. > > I try to become a new packager for Fedora and face a license that > needs to be checked. > The Main package is Newsbeuter MIT/X license and the needed lib is > "stfl" with a LGPLv3 license, supplemented by additional permissions. Thomas, The stfl library is licensed under the normal LGPLv3 license (its actually LGPLv3+). I think the thing that confused you is where the LGPLv3 license text says: " This version of the GNU Lesser General Public License incorporates the terms and conditions of version 3 of the GNU General Public License, supplemented by the additional permissions listed below." The LGPLv3 is just the GPLv3 with some extra permission grants. The stfl upstream did not modify the LGPLv3 at all. :) So, it is fine for Fedora. ~spot From aoliva at redhat.com Tue May 5 13:29:56 2009 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 10:29:56 -0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: (Alexandre Oliva's message of "Wed\, 29 Apr 2009 04\:04\:03 -0300") References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Apr 29, 2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Apr 26, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: >> If we find these non-redistributable firmware bits anywhere, we'd remove >> them. Now how abuot we let test your assertion above :-) with another concrete case? drm-nouveau.patch, applied to Fedora kernels, contains GPU microcode that, according to comments in the patch, were extracted from the non-Free nVidia drivers, in spite of the non-reverse engineering provisions of the license nVidia grants its customers, and, regardless, copied in a way that is not permitted by that license, possibly without permission from the copyright holder. http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html 2.1.2 Linux/FreeBSD/OpenSolaris Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux or FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived from the source code to these operating systems, may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files). http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/kernel/drm-nouveau.patch?revision=1.8.6.10&view=markup +/* These blocks of "magic numbers" are actually a microcode that the GPU uses + * to control how graphics contexts get saved and restored between PRAMIN + * and PGRAPH during a context switch. We're currently using values seen + * in mmio-traces of the binary driver. + */ I doubt the use of mmio traces to obtain a piece of code makes the code exempt from copyright, and I don't see any grant of permission to distribute those copyrighted pieces of code on their own. And, before you get too excited about their being so small, search for nv50_grctx.h in that same patch, and you'll see a much bigger problem. Now, don't get me wrong. I fight for software freedoms, including the freedom to modify and distribute software, regardless of whether it's Free. I wouldn't want to oppose the freedom to distribute any software whatsoever, even such harmful software as non-Free Software. However, if you want to abide by the unjust laws that are in effect, and by the policies the Fedora community agreed upon (and by your statement above), I don't see how you could proceed with the distribution of that software (even if you regard it as non-software, but rather firmware) once you become aware of the problem. Now, it could be that the authors of the patch (I know nothing about them) live under jurisdictions in which prohibitions on reverse engineering are not enforceable, and in which copyright can't be used to prevent the distribution of these pieces of code. But would this make their distribution permitted in more draconian and lawyer-ridden jurisdictions, or would Fedora be putting itself and its redistributors at the mercy of nVidia's legal department? Hopefully the authors got any permission needed from nVidia. But there's no evidence of that in the patch, and I don't know for a fact that they did. Do you? -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer From aoliva at redhat.com Tue May 5 14:11:49 2009 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 11:11:49 -0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: <4A0020EF.8030206@redhat.com> (Tom Callaway's message of "Tue\, 05 May 2009 07\:20\:15 -0400") References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> <49F8918E.40207@redhat.com> <49F8AEB8.9040401@redhat.com> <49F8D00F.40709@redhat.com> <49F91327.1070306@redhat.com> <49F9A2CC.4010808@redhat.com> <49FF9C06.7000706@redhat.com> <4A0020EF.8030206@redhat.com> Message-ID: On May 5, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > On 05/04/2009 10:23 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> but it is probably something that we could try to address with >>> > Broadcom and the owners of the code space, (specifically, Yaniv Rosner >>> > ). Have you reached out to him about your >>> > concerns? >> >> Nope. > Perhaps you should do that as the logical next step. That would make sense if people in general could set apart message from messenger. In my experience, few people do :-( My reasoning is that it would be better for someone who's less likely to evoke a hostile reaction. Because of some of my beliefs, people tend to assume I'm saying or writing things I'm not, assume everything I do is about one particular issue, and react explosively to their faulty assumptions. I've seen that stuff quite recently ;-) So, no, I'm not going to spoil that possibility by trying to do it myself. I've already got a fix for the problem that I'm reasonably happy with. Fixing it upstream, where such fixes are not wanted, is your preference, not mine, so I'll leave that for you to pursue. Thanks, -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer From thomasj at fedoraproject.org Tue May 5 14:43:50 2009 From: thomasj at fedoraproject.org (Thomas Janssen) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 16:43:50 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License check for new library for fedora In-Reply-To: <4A003BB7.90403@redhat.com> References: <4A003BB7.90403@redhat.com> Message-ID: 2009/5/5 Tom "spot" Callaway : > On 05/01/2009 01:14 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote: >> Good day. >> >> I try to become a new packager for Fedora and face a license that >> needs to be checked. >> The Main package is Newsbeuter MIT/X license and the needed lib is >> "stfl" with a LGPLv3 license, supplemented by additional permissions. > > Thomas, > > The stfl library is licensed under the normal LGPLv3 license (its > actually LGPLv3+). I think the thing that confused you is where the > LGPLv3 license text says: > > " This version of the GNU Lesser General Public License incorporates > the terms and conditions of version 3 of the GNU General Public > License, supplemented by the additional permissions listed below." Yes, that confused me :) Sorry, new packager, trying to make everything correct. > The LGPLv3 is just the GPLv3 with some extra permission grants. The stfl > upstream did not modify the LGPLv3 at all. :) So, it is fine for Fedora. Yippiieee, thank you :) Have a good day :) -- LG Thomas Dubium sapientiae initium From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed May 6 12:15:20 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 08:15:20 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A017F58.2080209@redhat.com> On 05/05/2009 09:29 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Hopefully the authors got any permission needed from nVidia. But > there's no evidence of that in the patch, and I don't know for a fact > that they did. Do you? Yes. NVIDIA is aware of their usage. Red Hat Legal advises that there is no concern here. ~spot From aoliva at redhat.com Wed May 6 19:49:50 2009 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 16:49:50 -0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: <4A017F58.2080209@redhat.com> (Tom Callaway's message of "Wed\, 06 May 2009 08\:15\:20 -0400") References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> <4A017F58.2080209@redhat.com> Message-ID: On May 6, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > On 05/05/2009 09:29 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Hopefully the authors got any permission needed from nVidia. But >> there's no evidence of that in the patch, and I don't know for a fact >> that they did. Do you? > Yes. NVIDIA is aware of their usage. Being aware is not quite the same as granting permission for it. Like, a patent holder might be aware of usage of some of their patents, but wait a long time before lauching a patent attack, so that it becomes more difficult for the defendant to stop using the technology. I can see the same strategy would be effective with copyrights. > Red Hat Legal advises that there is no concern here. Could we perhaps get an explicit license from nVidia, and put it in the patch so that people are aware that there's no legal trap being set? Thanks, -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer From orion at cora.nwra.com Thu May 7 15:06:33 2009 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 09:06:33 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CMSVLIB Message-ID: <4A02F8F9.6000507@cora.nwra.com> I'm trying to figure out if we can include this in Fedora. Web site is: http://cow.physics.wisc.edu/~craigm/idl/idl.html For the most part it seems like the code is "Copyright Only": ; Copyright (C) 1999-2000,2006 Craig Markwardt ; This software is provided as is without any warranty whatsoever. ; Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute modified or ; unmodified copies is granted, provided this copyright and disclaimer ; are included unchanged. The tricky part is the code that reads and writes IDL save files. IDL is proprietary software from (currently) ITT (previously Research Systems Inc). There is a LICENSE.RSI file: http://cow.physics.wisc.edu/~craigm/idl/down/LICENSE.RSI That seems to grant permission to use it. Comments? Thanks! -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion at cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu May 7 16:05:27 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 12:05:27 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CMSVLIB In-Reply-To: <4A02F8F9.6000507@cora.nwra.com> References: <4A02F8F9.6000507@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: <4A0306C7.3070805@redhat.com> On 05/07/2009 11:06 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > The tricky part is the code that reads and writes IDL save files. IDL > is proprietary software from (currently) ITT (previously Research > Systems Inc). There is a LICENSE.RSI file: > > http://cow.physics.wisc.edu/~craigm/idl/down/LICENSE.RSI > > That seems to grant permission to use it. Yes, but it clearly does not grant permission to modify it. That code is non-free. ~spot From orion at cora.nwra.com Thu May 7 16:21:34 2009 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 10:21:34 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CMSVLIB In-Reply-To: <4A0306C7.3070805@redhat.com> References: <4A02F8F9.6000507@cora.nwra.com> <4A0306C7.3070805@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A030A8E.4000508@cora.nwra.com> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 05/07/2009 11:06 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote: >> The tricky part is the code that reads and writes IDL save files. IDL >> is proprietary software from (currently) ITT (previously Research >> Systems Inc). There is a LICENSE.RSI file: >> >> http://cow.physics.wisc.edu/~craigm/idl/down/LICENSE.RSI >> >> That seems to grant permission to use it. > > Yes, but it clearly does not grant permission to modify it. That code is > non-free. Really, where? The text of the license cannot be modified, but I don't see where the code cannot (other than to change it to read not data portions of the save file - is that the trouble?) -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion at cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu May 7 20:29:27 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 16:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CMSVLIB In-Reply-To: <4A030A8E.4000508@cora.nwra.com> References: <4A02F8F9.6000507@cora.nwra.com> <4A0306C7.3070805@redhat.com> <4A030A8E.4000508@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: <4A0344A7.90205@redhat.com> On 05/07/2009 12:21 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >> On 05/07/2009 11:06 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote: >>> The tricky part is the code that reads and writes IDL save files. IDL >>> is proprietary software from (currently) ITT (previously Research >>> Systems Inc). There is a LICENSE.RSI file: >>> >>> http://cow.physics.wisc.edu/~craigm/idl/down/LICENSE.RSI >>> >>> That seems to grant permission to use it. >> >> Yes, but it clearly does not grant permission to modify it. That code is >> non-free. > > Really, where? The text of the license cannot be modified, but I don't > see where the code cannot (other than to change it to read not data > portions of the save file - is that the trouble?) It does not say that you cannot modify the code, but it never says that you _CAN_. Modification is not an automatically granted right under copyright, they have to explicitly grant it. ~spot From orion at cora.nwra.com Thu May 7 20:42:22 2009 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 14:42:22 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CMSVLIB In-Reply-To: <4A0344A7.90205@redhat.com> References: <4A02F8F9.6000507@cora.nwra.com> <4A0306C7.3070805@redhat.com> <4A030A8E.4000508@cora.nwra.com> <4A0344A7.90205@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A0347AE.9030401@cora.nwra.com> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > It does not say that you cannot modify the code, but it never says that > you _CAN_. Modification is not an automatically granted right under > copyright, they have to explicitly grant it. > > ~spot > But the copyright notice in the code gives it: ; Copyright (C) 1999-2000, Craig Markwardt ; This software is provided as is without any warranty whatsoever. ; Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute modified or ; unmodified copies is granted, provided this copyright and disclaimer ; are included unchanged. ;- -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion at cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu May 7 20:51:27 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 16:51:27 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CMSVLIB In-Reply-To: <4A0347AE.9030401@cora.nwra.com> References: <4A02F8F9.6000507@cora.nwra.com> <4A0306C7.3070805@redhat.com> <4A030A8E.4000508@cora.nwra.com> <4A0344A7.90205@redhat.com> <4A0347AE.9030401@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: <4A0349CF.6000007@redhat.com> On 05/07/2009 04:42 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >> It does not say that you cannot modify the code, but it never says that >> you _CAN_. Modification is not an automatically granted right under >> copyright, they have to explicitly grant it. >> >> ~spot >> > > But the copyright notice in the code gives it: > > ; Copyright (C) 1999-2000, Craig Markwardt > ; This software is provided as is without any warranty whatsoever. > ; Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute modified or > ; unmodified copies is granted, provided this copyright and disclaimer > ; are included unchanged. Okay, as a combination, I think we've got permission to modify, but there are still use restrictions in the IDL license that make it non-free, specifically: ; 5. Allowed use of this software is limited to reading and writing ; IDL variable related portions of IDL Save files. It may not be ; used as a basis for reverse engineering, or otherwise ; accessing any other portions of an IDL save file, including but ; not limited to, those portions that encode executable IDL programs. ; Such use is in violation of the IDL EULA, and will be prosecuted ; to the fullest extent possible by Research Systems, Inc. It is ; permissible to read such sections of an IDL save file for the ; sole purpose of transferring it without examination or interpretation ; to another save file. ~spot From galiotos at usc.edu Sat May 9 07:10:22 2009 From: galiotos at usc.edu (Panagiotis Galiotos) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 10:10:22 +0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Question on legal issues Message-ID: Dear all I'm trying to get familiar with Fedora Core 9. I would like to ask you if I can use this OS in my work for making profit or if this kind of usage is not permitted under the licence terms of FC 9 ? Please let me know about that, since I'm a little confused with all the talk about licences, GNU etc. Is this licence about copying and redistributing the source code or does it refer to the terms of use ? Regards, Panagiotis Galiotos From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat May 9 09:29:22 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 14:59:22 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Question on legal issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A054CF2.8040405@fedoraproject.org> On 05/09/2009 12:40 PM, Panagiotis Galiotos wrote: > Dear all > > I'm trying to get familiar with Fedora Core 9. > > I would like to ask you if I can use this OS in my work for making profit or if this kind of usage is not permitted under the licence terms of FC 9 ? > Please let me know about that, since I'm a little confused with all the talk about licences, GNU etc. Is this licence about copying and redistributing the source code or does it refer to the terms of use ? > Fedora has no use restrictions. You are free to use it commercially as well. You are free to copy and redistribute as many copies as you would like as well. Note however, with the lifecyle of Fedora, a month after Fedora 11 release, Fedora 9 will stop getting updates. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LifeCycle Also, it is not Fedora Core anymore but just Fedora since core and extras got merged together back before Fedora 7 release. Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon May 11 23:58:56 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 05:28:56 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CEPL license - acceptable? Message-ID: <4A08BBC0.6020704@fedoraproject.org> Hi It is a MPL variant but I would like legal to review the variations. http://www.celtx.com/CePL/ Rahul From choeger at cs.tu-berlin.de Tue May 12 20:11:08 2009 From: choeger at cs.tu-berlin.de (Christoph =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=F6ger?=) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 22:11:08 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] python openssl/gpl license issue? Message-ID: <1242159068.16184.17.camel@choeger6> Hi, I've just read http://blog.pierlux.com/2009/05/12/pythons-hidden-poissoned-apple-for-gpl-applications/en/ and it seems to me that this applys to offlineimap (which i am maintaining), as that tool uses sslsock from python and is licensed under gpl. I contacted upstream already, but first this is a fedora legal issue. So what am I supposed to do? regards christoph -------------- 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 tcallawa at redhat.com Tue May 12 20:20:00 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] python openssl/gpl license issue? In-Reply-To: <1242159068.16184.17.camel@choeger6> References: <1242159068.16184.17.camel@choeger6> Message-ID: <4A09D9F0.90709@redhat.com> On 05/12/2009 04:11 PM, Christoph H?ger wrote: > I contacted upstream already, but first this is a fedora > legal issue. So what am I supposed to do? See if upstream will add the OpenSSL exemption clause. Honestly, we don't really lose a lot of sleep here because the SSL library is arguably a "System Library" at this point. (The FSF disagrees, but the jury is still out.) ~spot From oget.fedora at gmail.com Tue May 12 20:41:09 2009 From: oget.fedora at gmail.com (Orcan Ogetbil) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:41:09 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] python openssl/gpl license issue? In-Reply-To: <1242159068.16184.17.camel@choeger6> References: <1242159068.16184.17.camel@choeger6> Message-ID: 2009/5/12 Christoph H?ger: > Hi, > > I've just read > > http://blog.pierlux.com/2009/05/12/pythons-hidden-poissoned-apple-for-gpl-applications/en/ > > and it seems to me that this applys to offlineimap (which i am > maintaining), as that tool uses sslsock from python and is licensed > under gpl. I contacted upstream already, but first this is a fedora > legal issue. So what am I supposed to do? > > regards > > christoph > > We have another openssl situation here. Upstream globus add their own license (ASLv2) clause on top of an openssl header file. At this point, I don't really know what to do. Can somebody give a hand? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467237 Orcan From dmalcolm at redhat.com Wed May 13 20:05:14 2009 From: dmalcolm at redhat.com (David Malcolm) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 16:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Does every file in the upstream tarball need to have a license? Message-ID: <1242245114.15351.28.camel@brick> I'm reviewing Djblets: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487098 which is a utility library used by ReviewBoard [1] The upstream website: http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/wiki/Djblets states "Djblets is under the MIT license." However, the upstream tarball does not contain a license file. Only some of the files within the tarball contain license headers. I believe that every file with a "Copyright" also contains an MIT license grant. (There's also an embedded copy of jquery, which is dual licensed MIT and GPL) The setup.py does state "MIT" in the license field, in the usual place for such metadata (although said file is itself GPLv2 licensed). Is this a problem for Fedora inclusion? Thanks Dave [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487097 From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed May 13 20:32:47 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 16:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Does every file in the upstream tarball need to have a license? In-Reply-To: <1242245114.15351.28.camel@brick> References: <1242245114.15351.28.camel@brick> Message-ID: <4A0B2E6F.7060007@redhat.com> On 05/13/2009 04:05 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > However, the upstream tarball does not contain a license file. Only > some of the files within the tarball contain license headers. I believe > that every file with a "Copyright" also contains an MIT license grant. > > (There's also an embedded copy of jquery, which is dual licensed MIT and > GPL) > > The setup.py does state "MIT" in the license field, in the usual place > for such metadata (although said file is itself GPLv2 licensed). > > Is this a problem for Fedora inclusion? Well, you should ask upstream to fix any code files missing copyright and license attribution. Barring that, they should at least clarify to you what the license is on the unmarked files. Without any sort of statement as to the overall code license (a mention on the project's website, or an email from upstream would suffice), we cannot assume we have any permissions on those files, thus, they're non-free. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed May 13 21:07:54 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 17:07:54 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Does every file in the upstream tarball need to have a license? In-Reply-To: <1242248192.30026.12.camel@radiator.bos.redhat.com> References: <1242245114.15351.28.camel@brick> <4A0B2E6F.7060007@redhat.com> <1242248192.30026.12.camel@radiator.bos.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A0B36AA.1010603@redhat.com> On 05/13/2009 04:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > Based on that, it sounds like this is OK for inclusion, and that I was > being overly paranoid. Is this correct? Yes, although, you should still ask upstream to fix the license attribution on the files which do not contain it. ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed May 13 21:24:02 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 02:54:02 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CEPL license - acceptable? In-Reply-To: <4A08BBC0.6020704@fedoraproject.org> References: <4A08BBC0.6020704@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4A0B3A72.4020707@fedoraproject.org> On 05/12/2009 05:28 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > It is a MPL variant but I would like legal to review the variations. > > http://www.celtx.com/CePL/ Spot? Rahul From tibbs at math.uh.edu Thu May 14 17:50:27 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:50:27 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] emc2 license Message-ID: Several users here want to use the emc2 mesh generation software so I figured I'd package it up if the license is acceptable. The software page in English is at: http://www-c.inria.fr/gamma/cdrom/www/emc2/eng.htm The COPYRIGHT file, however, is in French: http://www-c.inria.fr/gamma/cdrom/www/emc2/copyright.htm There seems to be some sort of commercial utilization clause, but my French is too limited to comprehend its scope. - J< From bochecha at fedoraproject.org Thu May 14 18:38:58 2009 From: bochecha at fedoraproject.org (Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 20:38:58 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] emc2 license In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d319b780905141138t648858f6jf5f3460328f4e012@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Need a french speaker ? > The COPYRIGHT file, however, is in French: > ?http://www-c.inria.fr/gamma/cdrom/www/emc2/copyright.htm > > There seems to be some sort of commercial utilization clause, but my > French is too limited to comprehend its scope. Here is a rough translation. Beware, I am not a lawyer, I certainly didn't use the most appropriate legal terms, etc... ----- COPYRIGHT emc2. Software EMC2 (c) INRIA 1998 version 2.06c from october 1998, referenced to as " the SOFTWARE" below. The SOFTWARE was conceived and developed by :Fr?d?ric Hecht and Eric Saltel, researchers in the Menusin and Modulef projects at the National Institute of Research in Computing and Automating (INRIA) - Domaine de Voluceau - Rocquencourt - 78153 Le Chesnay Cedex. INRIA holds all property rights on the SOFTWARE. Preamble: The SOFTWARE is under development and INRIA wants it to be used by the scientific comunity so that it gets tested, evaluated and so that it can evolve. To that purpose, INRIA decided to distribute the source code of the prototype of the SOFTWARE by FTP. a) Scope of the rights conceded by INRIA to the user of the SOFTWARE INRIA graciously grants the right to reproduce, use, distribute, modify the software as part of non commercial experimentations, as well as the right to experiment, in integration purpose, the software in another program. b) Reproduction of the SOFTWARE * Articles 9 and 10 of the Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works, respectively in their paragraphs 2 and 3, authorizing reproduction and quotation of intellectual works, only in the conditions: * "provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. * Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and of the name of the author if it appears thereon.", any usage or reproduction of the softwares and/or documents that are the exclusive property of INRIA in a non-profit goal or to a commercial purpose is bound to previous agreement from INRIA. Any commercial usage made without previous consent from INRIA would then be a counterfeiting offense. c) Information feedback Any user of the SOFTWARE will give feedback on usage of the SOFTWARE to INRIA (email: Fr?d?ric Hecht). d) Warranties : It is reminded that the SOFTWARE is a research product under development. INRIA could not ensure any responsibility and would not in any case be held liable to repair any direct or indirect damage suffered by the user. Fr?d?ric Hecht Last modified: Thu May 19 1998 ----- Note that the 2 mentioned articles from the Berne Convention are not my translation, they are the real paragraphs. I picked them here: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html Hope that can be useful. Regards, ---------- Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu May 14 19:14:16 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 15:14:16 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] emc2 license In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A0C6D88.4050201@redhat.com> On 05/14/2009 01:50 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Several users here want to use the emc2 mesh generation software so I > figured I'd package it up if the license is acceptable. > > The software page in English is at: > http://www-c.inria.fr/gamma/cdrom/www/emc2/eng.htm > > The COPYRIGHT file, however, is in French: > http://www-c.inria.fr/gamma/cdrom/www/emc2/copyright.htm > > There seems to be some sort of commercial utilization clause, but my > French is too limited to comprehend its scope. Based on the translation, it looks to have strict non-commercial use clauses, making it non-free. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu May 14 19:28:32 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 15:28:32 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CEPL license - acceptable? In-Reply-To: <4A08BBC0.6020704@fedoraproject.org> References: <4A08BBC0.6020704@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4A0C70E0.80709@redhat.com> On 05/11/2009 07:58 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > It is a MPL variant but I would like legal to review the variations. > > http://www.celtx.com/CePL/ Same as the "Netscape Public License". Use: License: Netscape ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat May 16 00:52:40 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 06:22:40 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] [Fwd: mono, not just moonlight] Message-ID: <4A0E0E58.3010602@fedoraproject.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: mono, not just moonlight Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:44:07 -0700 From: lee johnson To: webmaster at fedoraproject.org hi there. >From what I see on groklaw etal,, the same risks apply to mono as does moonlight , ie: patents. IF so , page needs to change to reflect that mono is also not allowed in. I shall keep an eye out on this, and thx for your help. thx lee -- http://heartseed.sf.net -- Fedora-websites-list mailing list Fedora-websites-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-websites-list From jonstanley at gmail.com Sat May 16 01:20:06 2009 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 21:20:06 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] [Fwd: mono, not just moonlight] In-Reply-To: <4A0E0E58.3010602@fedoraproject.org> References: <4A0E0E58.3010602@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: > >From what I see on groklaw etal,, the same risks apply to mono as does > moonlight , ie: patents. > IF so , page needs to change to reflect that mono is also not allowed in. AIUI, and spot can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, Mono is protected by OIN patents as well as any potential Microsoft patents, which is why it's allowed in. From richard at stitzweb.com Sun May 17 14:16:27 2009 From: richard at stitzweb.com (Richard Stitz) Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 09:16:27 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Donations Link Message-ID: <1242569787.3940.27.camel@richard.laptop> Hello, I am starting a web-based computer retail store, selling computer systems that have Linux pre-configured. I want to offer Fedora 10 (eventually 11), Ubuntu LTS and possibly a couple more distros to choose from. The website is www.stitzcomputers.com and I need to ask a couple of legal questions. Does Fedora accept donations, and if so, where can I find a URL to put on my site for this? Also, I will donate a part of every system sale ($10 USD) to the distro that the customer chooses to be installed on his/her system. Can I use the Fedora logo on my website for the purpose of promoting my product and linking back to Fedora websites? Although I am not charging for Linux directly, one could argue that I will profit from each distro offered because it essentially becomes part of the product that I am selling for a profit. Do I need permission from Fedora before I can offer Fedora to be pre-installed on my computer systems? What level of support for the distro do I need to offer? Can I count on the Fedora Forums to offer the support my customers will undoubtedly need? I am going to need to take advantage of any exposure my company can get, so with this in mind, is there any means of advertising on your sites or getting mentioned (and linked) here as a provider of Fedora-based systems? Can I offer Red Hat Enterprise Linux as well, and what would be the benefits to my customers? Thanks in advance for your time and attention devoted to this matter, I'll look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Richard Stitz richard at stitzweb.com www.stitzcomputers.com From loganjerry at gmail.com Mon May 18 20:17:06 2009 From: loganjerry at gmail.com (Jerry James) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 14:17:06 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] A couple of wiki page issues Message-ID: <870180fe0905181317y4c8a419cv4d5e1dd7f3c50b97@mail.gmail.com> Here are a couple of wiki page items I bumped into while checking some licenses. First, the "Sun Public License" link from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing leads to a fairly unhelpful page: http://www.netbeans.org/about/legal/spl.html. Second, there is yet another case of broken HTML in an "AS IS" clause, this time in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style_with_legal_disclaimer_3. I've found so many of those, I think I should get a pat on the back. -- Jerry James, who would rather have a pat than a monkey http://www.jamezone.org/ From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon May 18 21:06:19 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 17:06:19 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] A couple of wiki page issues In-Reply-To: <870180fe0905181317y4c8a419cv4d5e1dd7f3c50b97@mail.gmail.com> References: <870180fe0905181317y4c8a419cv4d5e1dd7f3c50b97@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A11CDCB.2020300@redhat.com> On 05/18/2009 04:17 PM, Jerry James wrote: > Here are a couple of wiki page items I bumped into while checking some > licenses. First, the "Sun Public License" link from > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing leads to a fairly unhelpful > page: http://www.netbeans.org/about/legal/spl.html. Second, there is > yet another case of broken HTML in an "AS IS" clause, this time in > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style_with_legal_disclaimer_3. > I've found so many of those, I think I should get a pat on the back. Thanks Jerry. Here's a pat on the back from me to you. :) ~spot P.S. Those two items are fixed now. From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon May 18 21:23:14 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 17:23:14 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Donations Link In-Reply-To: <1242569787.3940.27.camel@richard.laptop> References: <1242569787.3940.27.camel@richard.laptop> Message-ID: <4A11D1C2.9090208@redhat.com> Hi Richard, thanks for your email. I'll try to answer as many of your questions as I can. On 05/17/2009 10:16 AM, Richard Stitz wrote: > Does Fedora accept donations, and if so, where can I find a URL to put > on my site for this? Also, I will donate a part of every system sale > ($10 USD) to the distro that the customer chooses to be installed on > his/her system. We're looking into whether this is possible or not. > Can I use the Fedora logo on my website for the purpose of promoting my > product and linking back to Fedora websites? The answer here is yes, provided that you follow the Fedora Trademark guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/TrademarkGuidelines#Business_web_sites > Although I am not charging for Linux directly, one could argue that I > will profit from each distro offered because it essentially becomes part > of the product that I am selling for a profit. Do I need permission > from Fedora before I can offer Fedora to be pre-installed on my computer > systems? You do not need permission, as long as you are in compliance with the Fedora trademark guidelines (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/TrademarkGuidelines). > What level of support for the distro do I need to offer? Can I count on > the Fedora Forums to offer the support my customers will undoubtedly > need? This is up to you. Fedora does not "sell" any levels of support for our distribution releases. Assistance is provided to Fedora users via a number of official and unofficial websites: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate However, none of them guarantee any sort of resolution to issues, so I am not sure that you can "count" on these mechanisms to resolve all possible issues that your customers might face. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (an offering from Red Hat) does have varying levels of support with proper SLAs. > I am going to need to take advantage of any exposure my company can get, > so with this in mind, is there any means of advertising on your sites or > getting mentioned (and linked) here as a provider of Fedora-based > systems? We have not traditionally done this, but as far as I know, you are the first person to ask for something like this. I've raised the issue internally and will let you know what I find out. > Can I offer Red Hat Enterprise Linux as well, and what would be the > benefits to my customers? You'd need to talk to someone else at Red Hat about that: http://www.redhat.com/partners/helpdesk/ Once I have answers for the questions I was unable to immediately answer, I will write you again. Hope that helps, Tom Callaway, Fedora Legal From stickster at gmail.com Mon May 18 23:59:40 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 19:59:40 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Donations Link In-Reply-To: <4A11D1C2.9090208@redhat.com> References: <1242569787.3940.27.camel@richard.laptop> <4A11D1C2.9090208@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090518235940.GH3634@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 05:23:14PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > Hi Richard, thanks for your email. I'll try to answer as many of your > questions as I can. Spot answered almost exactly as I would have, but I'll add a couple things below in the hopes of helping. > On 05/17/2009 10:16 AM, Richard Stitz wrote: > > > Does Fedora accept donations, and if so, where can I find a URL to put > > on my site for this? Also, I will donate a part of every system sale > > ($10 USD) to the distro that the customer chooses to be installed on > > his/her system. > > We're looking into whether this is possible or not. It's not easy for us to accept money for a number of reasons, even though we appreciate the gesture. I would offer that even if we can't take these donations, there are plenty of upstream projects that could benefit from them, such as the GNOME Foundation and the Free Software Foundation. (I think those are fully tax-deductible as well, for what it's worth, but you should consult your tax professional since I'm not one.) > > Although I am not charging for Linux directly, one could argue that I > > will profit from each distro offered because it essentially becomes part > > of the product that I am selling for a profit. Do I need permission > > from Fedora before I can offer Fedora to be pre-installed on my computer > > systems? > > You do not need permission, as long as you are in compliance with the > Fedora trademark guidelines > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/TrademarkGuidelines). We are working on some updates to the guidelines to make this clearer in the case of OEM pre-loads, as in your case. > > I am going to need to take advantage of any exposure my company can get, > > so with this in mind, is there any means of advertising on your sites or > > getting mentioned (and linked) here as a provider of Fedora-based > > systems? > > We have not traditionally done this, but as far as I know, you are the > first person to ask for something like this. I've raised the issue > internally and will let you know what I find out. We have wiki pages on our site that list vendors who offer sponsored media -- that is, Fedora for sale, where part of the proceeds goes to fund free media for people in low-bandwidth areas who want Fedora media. I think it might be possible to have a page listing vendors who offer Fedora pre-loaded on systems, but it would need to be abundantly clear that the Fedora Project is not endorsing any vendors labeled on that page. It would be virtually impossible for us to conduct any sort of rigorous quality testing on the products offered by vendors on that page. We still have to do some digging, but hopefully the information you from him will get you started, and I hope I've added something useful too. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon May 25 08:25:46 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 13:55:46 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Font license - free? Message-ID: <4A1A560A.6000407@fedoraproject.org> Hi Is this font license considered free for Fedora? http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com/aksharyogini.html Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon May 25 22:02:38 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 18:02:38 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Font license - free? In-Reply-To: <4A1A560A.6000407@fedoraproject.org> References: <4A1A560A.6000407@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4A1B157E.7000003@redhat.com> On 05/25/2009 04:25 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > Is this font license considered free for Fedora? > > http://aksharyogini.sudhanwa.com/aksharyogini.html Non-free, no permission to modify. ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue May 26 17:07:57 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 22:37:57 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CATS Public License 1.1 a Message-ID: <4A1C21ED.4030006@fedoraproject.org> Hi http://fpaste.org/paste/13016 The later versions of this software is now proprietary but the older versions have this modified version of MPL. Please review. Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue May 26 17:11:27 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 13:11:27 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CATS Public License 1.1 a In-Reply-To: <4A1C21ED.4030006@fedoraproject.org> References: <4A1C21ED.4030006@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4A1C22BF.7000309@redhat.com> On 05/26/2009 01:07 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > http://fpaste.org/paste/13016 > > The later versions of this software is now proprietary but the older > versions have this modified version of MPL. Please review. Non-free. Exhibit B, Section 1 is a clear use-restriction. ~spot From stickster at gmail.com Tue May 26 19:45:31 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 15:45:31 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Wikipedia license change In-Reply-To: <4A1C368A.7090103@fedoraproject.org> References: <20090526090803.GN4398@calliope.phig.org> <4A1BB409.9000807@fedoraproject.org> <20090526180349.GP4398@calliope.phig.org> <87f35b5e0905261130x6bd6e0a3k95d2fe5cb42ccf03@mail.gmail.com> <4A1C368A.7090103@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20090526194531.GD3473@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:05:54AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 05/27/2009 12:00 AM, Ben Cotton wrote: > >> The OPL has served us very well for a long time, I'm sad to see us > >> move from it, but at this point the writing is clear. We gain a lot > >> by going with a proper CC license. > >> > > Pardon my noobness, but what is it that we gain? I don't have any > > objections to changing per se, but I'd like to know what the argument > > is before I support it. :-) > > Discussions starting at > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-April/msg00061.html > > Short version: CC BY SA is a much more widely used license allowing for > more sharing of content and it is better known and understood as well. Let's make sure we keep our various legal minds roped in. I know that Spot mentioned Red Hat Legal may be very much in favor of going with CC BY-SA, so that may a problem solved before we had it. :-) -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From kwade at redhat.com Tue May 26 19:56:28 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 12:56:28 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Wikipedia license change In-Reply-To: <20090526194531.GD3473@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090526090803.GN4398@calliope.phig.org> <4A1BB409.9000807@fedoraproject.org> <20090526180349.GP4398@calliope.phig.org> <87f35b5e0905261130x6bd6e0a3k95d2fe5cb42ccf03@mail.gmail.com> <4A1C368A.7090103@fedoraproject.org> <20090526194531.GD3473@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090526195628.GU4398@calliope.phig.org> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 03:45:31PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > Let's make sure we keep our various legal minds roped in. I know that > Spot mentioned Red Hat Legal may be very much in favor of going with > CC BY-SA, so that may a problem solved before we had it. :-) Didn't Richard Fontana weigh in directly on the previous discussion? Regardless, one of the things I'd have to do with this task is coordinate with Red Hat's Content Services team, who just did a re-licensing, and make sure we are copacetic. That will require a double-tap from Legal, approving the Red Hat content relicensing as well as the Fedora. I'll make sure it is explicitly covered instead of just implicitly. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue May 26 21:29:20 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 17:29:20 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Wikipedia license change In-Reply-To: <20090526195628.GU4398@calliope.phig.org> References: <20090526090803.GN4398@calliope.phig.org> <4A1BB409.9000807@fedoraproject.org> <20090526180349.GP4398@calliope.phig.org> <87f35b5e0905261130x6bd6e0a3k95d2fe5cb42ccf03@mail.gmail.com> <4A1C368A.7090103@fedoraproject.org> <20090526194531.GD3473@localhost.localdomain> <20090526195628.GU4398@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <4A1C5F30.7080000@redhat.com> On 05/26/2009 03:56 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 03:45:31PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > >> Let's make sure we keep our various legal minds roped in. I know that >> Spot mentioned Red Hat Legal may be very much in favor of going with >> CC BY-SA, so that may a problem solved before we had it. :-) > > Didn't Richard Fontana weigh in directly on the previous discussion? > > Regardless, one of the things I'd have to do with this task is > coordinate with Red Hat's Content Services team, who just did a > re-licensing, and make sure we are copacetic. That will require a > double-tap from Legal, approving the Red Hat content relicensing as > well as the Fedora. I'll make sure it is explicitly covered instead > of just implicitly. I know Richard reads fedora-legal-list, so I'll wait for him to chime in, but in the past, he's expressed that he would very much like for us to move the wiki from OPL to CC-BY-SA. ~spot From rfontana at redhat.com Thu May 28 14:46:00 2009 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:46:00 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Wikipedia license change In-Reply-To: <4A1C5F30.7080000@redhat.com> References: <20090526090803.GN4398@calliope.phig.org> <4A1BB409.9000807@fedoraproject.org> <20090526180349.GP4398@calliope.phig.org> <87f35b5e0905261130x6bd6e0a3k95d2fe5cb42ccf03@mail.gmail.com> <4A1C368A.7090103@fedoraproject.org> <20090526194531.GD3473@localhost.localdomain> <20090526195628.GU4398@calliope.phig.org> <4A1C5F30.7080000@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090528104600.125a9ceb@calliope> On Tue, 26 May 2009 17:29:20 -0400 "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > I know Richard reads fedora-legal-list, so I'll wait for him to chime > in, but in the past, he's expressed that he would very much like for > us to move the wiki from OPL to CC-BY-SA. Such a decision should be made by Fedora qua Fedora, consistent with Fedora's licensing guidelines and general rationality (which is true of the current situation with the use of the OPL and would be true if the license of choice were CC-BY-SA instead). FWIW, my personal view is that switching from OPL to CC-BY-SA makes a lot of sense. In my opinion, the OPL is now a fairly dated license with some flaws. That alone isn't a reason not to use it, for a content author who happens to like it, but the availability of CC-BY-SA shows that there is a license with the same desirable policies (from Fedora's perspective) that is the result of more careful legal drafting. As others have pointed out, CC-BY-SA is today a more widely used license, has a track record of responsible revisions, and the author of the OPL himself would seem to be in favor of OPL users moving on to CC licenses. I've heard one or two people in the Fedora docs community say that CC-BY-SA permits combination, or relicensing, under a broad set of licenses with similar policies including the OPL. That is actually not correct (at least for version 3.0 of CC-BY-SA). CC-BY-SA 3.0 says: You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version) that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g., Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 US)); (iv) a Creative Commons Compatible License. A "Creative Commons Compatible License" is defined as a license that is listed at http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that has been approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this License, including, at a minimum, because that license: (i) contains terms that have the same purpose, meaning and effect as the License Elements of this License; and, (ii) explicitly permits the relicensing of adaptations of works made available under that license under this License or a Creative Commons jurisdiction license with the same License Elements as this License. However, http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses says that "to date, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for compatibility", and I don't think the OPL would meet the given standard anyway. -- Richard E. Fontana Open Source Licensing and Patent Counsel Red Hat, Inc. From eric at christensenplace.us Thu May 28 19:31:13 2009 From: eric at christensenplace.us (Eric Christensen) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 15:31:13 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Wikipedia license change In-Reply-To: <20090528104600.125a9ceb@calliope> References: <20090526090803.GN4398@calliope.phig.org> <4A1BB409.9000807@fedoraproject.org> <20090526180349.GP4398@calliope.phig.org> <87f35b5e0905261130x6bd6e0a3k95d2fe5cb42ccf03@mail.gmail.com> <4A1C368A.7090103@fedoraproject.org> <20090526194531.GD3473@localhost.localdomain> <20090526195628.GU4398@calliope.phig.org> <4A1C5F30.7080000@redhat.com> <20090528104600.125a9ceb@calliope> Message-ID: On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:46, Richard Fontana wrote: > However, http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses says that "to > date, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for > compatibility", and I don't think the OPL would meet the given standard > anyway. > > > -- > Richard E. Fontana > Open Source Licensing and Patent Counsel > Red Hat, Inc. Hi Richard, Thanks for the information. What does this mean for current works that are now downstream if we change the license? Would we have to give general permission to those works or are they still covered because they met the requirements of the original license? Thanks, Eric Docs Project Lead From rfontana at redhat.com Thu May 28 20:42:23 2009 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 16:42:23 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Wikipedia license change In-Reply-To: References: <20090526090803.GN4398@calliope.phig.org> <4A1BB409.9000807@fedoraproject.org> <20090526180349.GP4398@calliope.phig.org> <87f35b5e0905261130x6bd6e0a3k95d2fe5cb42ccf03@mail.gmail.com> <4A1C368A.7090103@fedoraproject.org> <20090526194531.GD3473@localhost.localdomain> <20090526195628.GU4398@calliope.phig.org> <4A1C5F30.7080000@redhat.com> <20090528104600.125a9ceb@calliope> Message-ID: <20090528164223.4495e8a1@calliope> On Thu, 28 May 2009 15:31:13 -0400 Eric Christensen wrote: > Hi Richard, > Thanks for the information. What does this mean for current works > that are now downstream if we change the license? Would we have to > give general permission to those works or are they still covered > because they met the requirements of the original license? Hi Eric, Not sure if this is what you are asking, but: We can (and probably would want to) extend permission to cover all past works that have been released. This would not revoke the original permissions given under the OPL, as those permissions are permanent, but it would supplement them (i.e., past works would thereafter become dual-licensed under OPL and CC-BY-SA). If some Fedora work W licensed under OPL is modified downstream by A (W'), and assume that the OPL requires A to license W' including its changes under OPL: A can relicense W' under CC-BY-SA by agreeing to relicense its changes under CC-BY-SA, but otherwise a downstream recipient of W' receives it under OPL only. - RF From caolanm at redhat.com Fri May 29 07:10:11 2009 From: caolanm at redhat.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Caol=E1n?= McNamara) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 08:10:11 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] EUPL v1.1 ? Message-ID: <1243581011.19290.1268.camel@Vain> On this list previously the EUPL v1.0 was considered unacceptable for Fedora, (http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-legal-list at redhat.com/msg00144.html) Since then, there is now a EUPL v1.1, http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl does that fix the problems, or remain unacceptable ? Assuming that the EUPL v1.1 remains unacceptable, can someone e.g. dual licence something as EUPL v1.X and say LGPLv2 in order to make it acceptable for us. C. From luis at tieguy.org Fri May 29 14:20:12 2009 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:20:12 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] EUPL v1.1 ? In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440905290719g76c66070rde40a20acdb4778d@mail.gmail.com> References: <1243581011.19290.1268.camel@Vain> <2cb10c440905290719g76c66070rde40a20acdb4778d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440905290720u38453ffcu773aea1958527e8@mail.gmail.com> I have not looked at the final draft, but as I understand it the purpose of issuing eupl 1.1 was to make it osi compliant. So it *should* be good now. Luis On May 29, 2009 9:35 AM, "Caol?n McNamara" wrote: On this list previously the EUPL v1.0 was considered unacceptable for Fedora, (http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-legal-list at redhat.com/msg00144.html) Since then, there is now a EUPL v1.1, http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl does that fix the problems, or remain unacceptable ? Assuming that the EUPL v1.1 remains unacceptable, can someone e.g. dual licence something as EUPL v1.X and say LGPLv2 in order to make it acceptable for us. C. _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri May 29 16:30:50 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 22:00:50 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] EUPL v1.1 ? In-Reply-To: <1243581011.19290.1268.camel@Vain> References: <1243581011.19290.1268.camel@Vain> Message-ID: <4A200DBA.4010408@fedoraproject.org> On 05/29/2009 12:40 PM, Caol?n McNamara wrote: > Assuming that the EUPL v1.1 remains unacceptable, can someone e.g. dual > licence something as EUPL v1.X and say LGPLv2 in order to make it > acceptable for us. If a software is dual licensed and if any one of them is acceptable to Fedora, the software will be permitted in Fedora (ie) if EUPL v1.x is not acceptable, then we would accept it in Fedora under the LGPLv2 license. Rahul From eric at christensenplace.us Fri May 29 14:36:47 2009 From: eric at christensenplace.us (Eric Christensen) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:36:47 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Wikipedia license change In-Reply-To: <20090528164223.4495e8a1@calliope> References: <20090526090803.GN4398@calliope.phig.org> <20090526180349.GP4398@calliope.phig.org> <87f35b5e0905261130x6bd6e0a3k95d2fe5cb42ccf03@mail.gmail.com> <4A1C368A.7090103@fedoraproject.org> <20090526194531.GD3473@localhost.localdomain> <20090526195628.GU4398@calliope.phig.org> <4A1C5F30.7080000@redhat.com> <20090528104600.125a9ceb@calliope> <20090528164223.4495e8a1@calliope> Message-ID: On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 16:42, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2009 15:31:13 -0400 > Eric Christensen wrote: > >> Hi Richard, >> Thanks for the information. ?What does this mean for current works >> that are now downstream if we change the license? ?Would we have to >> give general permission to those works or are they still covered >> because they met the requirements of the original license? > > Hi Eric, > > Not sure if this is what you are asking, but: We can (and probably > would want to) extend permission to cover all past works that have been > released. This would not revoke the original permissions given under > the OPL, as those permissions are permanent, but it would supplement > them (i.e., past works would thereafter become dual-licensed under OPL > and CC-BY-SA). > > If some Fedora work W licensed under OPL is modified downstream by A > (W'), and assume that the OPL requires A to license W' including its > changes under OPL: ?A can relicense W' under CC-BY-SA by agreeing to > relicense its changes under CC-BY-SA, but otherwise a downstream > recipient of W' receives it under OPL only. > > - RF Richard, That's exactly what I was asking about. Thanks! Eric