From mel at redhat.com Fri Sep 4 15:12:01 2009 From: mel at redhat.com (Mel Chua) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:12:01 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora print magazine licensing: what should we be aware of? In-Reply-To: <4AA12DFF.9040109@redhat.com> References: <4AA12DFF.9040109@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AA12E41.1010009@redhat.com> Adam Miller and I were talking about the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_print_magazine proposal and a question for fedora-legal came up. Basically, as we move through the process of exploring (and then hopefully producing) a print Fedora magazine (right now the proposal is from Linux Pro Magazine, for us to work with them), are there any legal things we should be aware of? One of the things I want to ask about today is the licensing and online availability of the magazine materials. I'm not sure if we'll be republishing any materials we've already got / will be having, but it seems pretty logical that we would (for instance, publish the screeenshots tour, or feature profiles). ah, that might be a question for fedora-legal mailing list maxamillion: ooh, thanks for the suggestion. *asks fedora-legal* Thanks! --Mel From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Fri Sep 4 15:31:25 2009 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:31:25 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora print magazine licensing: what should we be aware of? In-Reply-To: <4AA12E41.1010009@redhat.com> References: <4AA12DFF.9040109@redhat.com> <4AA12E41.1010009@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1252078285.1979.21.camel@PB3.linux> Hi, > One of the things I want to ask about today is the licensing and > online availability of the magazine materials. > I'm not sure if we'll be republishing any materials we've > already got / will be having, but it seems pretty logical that we would > (for instance, publish the screeenshots tour, or feature profiles). > ah, that might be a question for fedora-legal mailing list > maxamillion: ooh, thanks for the suggestion. *asks fedora-legal* Having been a former long term editor of a paper publication in the UK, I can say this with some certainty : It depends. The depends falls into a number of categories. First are the rights the first publication was brought in on. A number of paper mags take articles based on an original print, a reprint and possibly as part of a compendium on a subject. It is very rare for something to be made electronically (e.g. by PDF or HTML) unless it is in a password protected area. Second are the company rights. While it is a Fedora publication and Fedora is backed by Red Hat, it does not follow that anything published by RH is instantly OK legally for publication by Fedora (and vice versa). Recently there was some discussion on the -devel list (IIRC) over some of the Fedora artwork which was (c) Red Hat and if the copyright attribution had to be changed. OK, not really mammoth in it's size, but this is really the tip of an iceberg! Third are the publishers rights. Does everything stay with Fedora (and/or their successors in interest should the unthinkable occur), what hold do the publishers have for reprint in their own magazines and what is returned to the original authors (again, rights pending). This may not seem much, but I personally have experienced the displeasure of being screwed over in this way (I had something published years ago, company went over, successor republished and made a pretty penny - I got nothing due to the wording of the contract). We then have the licence for web publication (if this happens). Is everything (c) or released under the CC licence and if this is the case, what is the users incentive to purchase the paper copy? Will contributors want to ascribe their work to the CC licence is a heavier issue. Next up, confidentiality disclaimers - if I write something using Mono, publish in Fedora User Monthly and the company I work for find out, who does the buck stop with should they decide that what I've written is confidential and the published article breaches something. As for printing tour photos or features, they pose probably the least problem. If it's a person, get them to sign a standard image release and you're good. If it's a screenshot of a GPL/LGPL/MIT/CC/any FOSS happy license product, no problems as long as the author gets a copy of the article and the rights to publish sections in their own advertising blurb. Naming names (confidentiality II). Believe it or not, some companies/individuals/programming groups don't want to be named as it may compromise something else going on. Care must be taken here as naming names can lead to big problems - the bigger the name, the more they like taking action - and yes, I've seen heads roll on this one. Copyright attribution (products) : Not really a problem unless it's a prototype. Can't think of much more and IANAL, but would certainly be interested in editing such a fun publication! TTFN Paul -- ?Sie k?nnen mich aufreizen und wirklich hei? machen! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Fri Sep 4 15:48:18 2009 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:48:18 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Wiki page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_print_magazine_proposal Message-ID: <1252079298.1979.26.camel@PB3.linux> Hi, I'm looking at the additional agreements part at the base of the document and specifically the line about LPM having the editorial control. While I don't have a problem with that, there needs to be something in the additional part to protect authors over reprints as there is nothing in proposal over LPM using articles in the Fedora mag for their own financial gain in either paper or electronically published form. It is very unusual for contributors to give carte blanche permission for publication and republication. The way this proposal is worded provides no protection against this from happening. I've not edited the page as I'd like the fedora-legal people's perspective on this. TTFN Paul -- ?Sie k?nnen mich aufreizen und wirklich hei? machen! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Sep 4 18:20:07 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:20:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Wiki page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_print_magazine_proposal In-Reply-To: <1252079298.1979.26.camel@PB3.linux> References: <1252079298.1979.26.camel@PB3.linux> Message-ID: <4AA15A57.4060704@redhat.com> On 09/04/2009 11:48 AM, Paul wrote: > Hi, > > I'm looking at the additional agreements part at the base of the > document and specifically the line about LPM having the editorial > control. > > While I don't have a problem with that, there needs to be something in > the additional part to protect authors over reprints as there is nothing > in proposal over LPM using articles in the Fedora mag for their own > financial gain in either paper or electronically published form. > > It is very unusual for contributors to give carte blanche permission for > publication and republication. The way this proposal is worded provides > no protection against this from happening. > > I've not edited the page as I'd like the fedora-legal people's > perspective on this. Hmm, ok. Here's my thoughts: * Some of the content will be written/created by LPM (possibly all of the content). Accordingly, I don't think we get much say in how they use it, aside from the normal trademark usage considerations. * For anything that Fedora owns, we should be sure it is available under acceptable licensing terms, but for things like screenshots, I doubt there is much concern, as that sort of thing is rather ubiquitous. * I think ultimately, if Fedora contributors end up authoring content for this magazine, they should do so under licensing terms that they are comfortable with, but I don't think it is necessary to mandate it. ~spot From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Fri Sep 4 18:51:31 2009 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:51:31 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Wiki page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_print_magazine_proposal In-Reply-To: <4AA15A57.4060704@redhat.com> References: <1252079298.1979.26.camel@PB3.linux> <4AA15A57.4060704@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1252090291.1979.33.camel@PB3.linux> Hi, > > I've not edited the page as I'd like the fedora-legal people's > > perspective on this. > > Hmm, ok. Here's my thoughts: > > * Some of the content will be written/created by LPM (possibly all of > the content). Accordingly, I don't think we get much say in how they use > it, aside from the normal trademark usage considerations. I'd have thought that we (Fedora people) would be in a better position to write about F12 than LPM. As it is advertising Fedora, I think Fedora should have more say in what is done with it. > * For anything that Fedora owns, we should be sure it is available under > acceptable licensing terms, but for things like screenshots, I doubt > there is much concern, as that sort of thing is rather ubiquitous. You'd think that - I know some companies hate screenshots being taken and frequently mock up rather than show production... > * I think ultimately, if Fedora contributors end up authoring content > for this magazine, they should do so under licensing terms that they are > comfortable with, but I don't think it is necessary to mandate it. Here I'd disagree. While for software, folks are happy for anyone to use it as they like. However, for written work, people become protective. It is better have something which says "by contributing this piece, you are giving Fedora to publish once and republish once by any means". That way the author knows exactly what terms they are contributing by. I know it's not ideal, but this is publishing and to paraphrase and old (and long gone) editor friend, "you live and die by the words you use". TTFN Paul -- ?Sie k?nnen mich aufreizen und wirklich hei? machen! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Sep 4 20:19:34 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:19:34 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Wiki page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_print_magazine_proposal In-Reply-To: <1252090291.1979.33.camel@PB3.linux> References: <1252079298.1979.26.camel@PB3.linux> <4AA15A57.4060704@redhat.com> <1252090291.1979.33.camel@PB3.linux> Message-ID: <4AA17656.2080201@redhat.com> On 09/04/2009 02:51 PM, Paul wrote: > Here I'd disagree. While for software, folks are happy for anyone to use > it as they like. However, for written work, people become protective. It > is better have something which says "by contributing this piece, you are > giving Fedora to publish once and republish once by any means". That way > the author knows exactly what terms they are contributing by. I'm torn here. I want to believe that protective authors will be intelligent enough to set licensing terms for their copyrighted works. Also, I don't want to say "these are the terms under which you give us these works", because then those protective people just complain and moan about how they're either too restrictive or too permissive. My instinct is to say that the contributing authors have to tell us the license under which we can use their contributions. Alternately, we could use unlicensed contributions of articles under the CLA, which allows us an extremely permissive license. Also, I'm not sure that LPM will be okay with using material under CC-BY-SA, for example (which is Free). If I had to guess, I'd say they would want something with the Non Commercial restriction (and a specific exclusion for them). But lets keep in mind that as far as I know, it is not clear where the content for this magazine will come from. Mel, maybe you can shed some light here? ~spot From mel at redhat.com Sat Sep 5 07:04:59 2009 From: mel at redhat.com (Mel Chua) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 03:04:59 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Wiki page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_print_magazine_proposal In-Reply-To: <4AA17656.2080201@redhat.com> References: <1252079298.1979.26.camel@PB3.linux> <4AA15A57.4060704@redhat.com> <1252090291.1979.33.camel@PB3.linux> <4AA17656.2080201@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AA20D9B.7070008@redhat.com> > Also, I'm not sure that LPM will be okay with using material under > CC-BY-SA, for example (which is Free). If I had to guess, I'd say they > would want something with the Non Commercial restriction (and a specific > exclusion for them). Yeah, this is something we Don't Know Yet. I believe the LPM folks will be coming back with a revised proposal at the beginning of next week and hopefully that will answer some of the questions that we have about how this would work. > But lets keep in mind that as far as I know, it is not clear where the > content for this magazine will come from. Mel, maybe you can shed some > light here? Keeping in mind that this is still very much a proposal, and we're still trying to figure out if it would even work and whether we should do it... The magazine content (in terms of both writing and graphics) would come from a combination of LPM's staff and Fedora community members; obviously we're hoping to weight that balance towards the Fedora community as much as possible, but it would depend on how many people stepped up to participate. Another open question is the process of determining what that content will be. (So in short, Spot's right; it's not clear.) --Mel From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Sat Sep 5 09:15:31 2009 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:15:31 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Wiki page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_print_magazine_proposal In-Reply-To: <4AA17656.2080201@redhat.com> References: <1252079298.1979.26.camel@PB3.linux> <4AA15A57.4060704@redhat.com> <1252090291.1979.33.camel@PB3.linux> <4AA17656.2080201@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1252142131.1979.44.camel@PB3.linux> Hi, > > Here I'd disagree. While for software, folks are happy for anyone to use > > it as they like. However, for written work, people become protective. It > > is better have something which says "by contributing this piece, you are > > giving Fedora to publish once and republish once by any means". That way > > the author knows exactly what terms they are contributing by. > > I'm torn here. I want to believe that protective authors will be > intelligent enough to set licensing terms for their copyrighted works. From my experience, they're not. It may sound really condescending here, but if they have the terms already there, they are much happier. The majority of the times it dictates the scope which they are allowed to write under and also means that should their work be referenced a few years later, they have the fallback position of the license restrictions (it happens) > Also, I don't want to say "these are the terms under which you give us > these works", because then those protective people just complain and > moan about how they're either too restrictive or too permissive. Again, my experience says the opposite. People write. I've only had one instance where an author refused to write the final part of a piece due to a restriction (and that was mainly as he'd just moved job). > My instinct is to say that the contributing authors have to tell us the > license under which we can use their contributions. 100 pieces, 100 licences.. <> > Also, I'm not sure that LPM will be okay with using material under > CC-BY-SA, for example (which is Free). If I had to guess, I'd say they > would want something with the Non Commercial restriction (and a specific > exclusion for them). Wouldn't surprise me in the least. > But lets keep in mind that as far as I know, it is not clear where the > content for this magazine will come from. Mel, maybe you can shed some > light here? Given this is in the planning stage, an integral part of planning must include the contributions! TTFN Paul -- ?Sie k?nnen mich aufreizen und wirklich hei? machen! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Sat Sep 5 09:31:44 2009 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:31:44 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Wiki page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_print_magazine_proposal In-Reply-To: <4AA20D9B.7070008@redhat.com> References: <1252079298.1979.26.camel@PB3.linux> <4AA15A57.4060704@redhat.com> <1252090291.1979.33.camel@PB3.linux> <4AA17656.2080201@redhat.com> <4AA20D9B.7070008@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1252143104.1979.61.camel@PB3.linux> Hi, > > Also, I'm not sure that LPM will be okay with using material under > > CC-BY-SA, for example (which is Free). If I had to guess, I'd say they > > would want something with the Non Commercial restriction (and a specific > > exclusion for them). > > Yeah, this is something we Don't Know Yet. I believe the LPM folks will > be coming back with a revised proposal at the beginning of next week and > hopefully that will answer some of the questions that we have about how > this would work. Excellent :-) > > But lets keep in mind that as far as I know, it is not clear where the > > content for this magazine will come from. Mel, maybe you can shed some > > light here? > > Keeping in mind that this is still very much a proposal, and we're still > trying to figure out if it would even work and whether we should do it... We certainly should do it - anything which promotes us in such a way is good. I do though think the scope of the publication needs altering. While it is good that the proposal is to try and bring Windows users over from the dark side, we should be looking at those in power at companies, we should be looking at the education markets (hell, the OLPC is probably one of the finest examples of both green technology and how OSS is being used to teach and help in the developing countries). Maybe for a second edition eh ;-) > The magazine content (in terms of both writing and graphics) would come > from a combination of LPM's staff and Fedora community members; > obviously we're hoping to weight that balance towards the Fedora > community as much as possible, but it would depend on how many people > stepped up to participate. Another open question is the process of > determining what that content will be. (So in short, Spot's right; it's > not clear.) That's down to the editorial staff. The process I used to take was this 1. Get all the articles together. By submitting the article, it meant that they agreed with the terms of publication. 2. Proof read and send back to author with helpful suggestions (some did include lines such as "in it's current state, it would not be suitable for publication") 3. If there was enough to publish, the weaker articles would be quietly dropped or edited them down - effectively making them space fillers 4. If an article was close to the knuckle (legally), it would have to be checked by the legal people. This usually meant that it would be delayed until the next issue 5. Final edit and send to the production editor 6. Production editor makes the mock up and emails it to the team who then proof it again to ensure accuracy and content validity. Now, for us if it's not supplied by LPM, the editor (or another member of the editorial staff) will need to check that if it's a walk through that the walk through is correct. If it is supplied by LPM, then I'd assume it's correct, but still check (IIRC, Linux Format in the UK did a series using the GIMP and while it was fantastic, there was one that never worked irrespective of the version of GIMP used. I never did find out why as my subscription lapsed [lost job, subscription went to save money, old story...]) TTFN PFJ (getting excited!) -- ?Sie k?nnen mich aufreizen und wirklich hei? machen! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From kwade at redhat.com Sat Sep 5 16:05:32 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 09:05:32 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Wiki page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_print_magazine_proposal In-Reply-To: <1252142131.1979.44.camel@PB3.linux> References: <1252079298.1979.26.camel@PB3.linux> <4AA15A57.4060704@redhat.com> <1252090291.1979.33.camel@PB3.linux> <4AA17656.2080201@redhat.com> <1252142131.1979.44.camel@PB3.linux> Message-ID: <20090905160532.GG18490@calliope.phig.org> On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 10:15:31AM +0100, Paul wrote: > > > But lets keep in mind that as far as I know, it is not clear where the > > content for this magazine will come from. Mel, maybe you can shed some > > light here? > > Given this is in the planning stage, an integral part of planning must > include the contributions! The original proposal from Linux Pro Magazine was built around the concept of, "We can do all this for Fedora and keep the work load off of you." Mel's approach, rightly IMO, is to consider, "How much of this can be done by Fedora contributors, so they can learn from the professional magazine staff and have a direct hand in creating this magazine." That means, as much of the content as we can reasonably get from within the Fedora Project, we will. So, that means that the situation is likely to be a blend of what Spot and Paul are talking about here. The pool of contributors already has more exposure to licensing, for example, and form opinions similar to what Spot is saying. For example, I plan to write for the issue, and I have particular opinions about licensing. :) I prefer (now) to use a CC license. Actually, to be honest, I'd be fine with deciding as a magazine editorial team to use one specific license to make eventual content freeing easier. From my perspective, the core challenge is "NC or not-NC". I think people in the project would prefer to do work that can be reused by Fedora. LPM, as you said, may have different preferences here. What I was thinking was a modified form of the "first publication rights" contract: * All content is contractually under the CC BY-SA-NC until six months after the publication hits the magazine stands. * At that point, the rights holders remove the NC clause permanently so that it can be freely used by Fedora. This gives LPM the commercial protection to make their investment worthwhile, having it sunset about the time that the next version of Fedora Linux comes out. I actually feel that 6 months is too long; I'd prefer 3, so that the content can be used in Fedora while it is still highly relevant. But I'm not sure that is fair to LPM, especially if this is the first time they've entered into such a contract. I want to give them enough room to feel comfortable about making it work. - 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 paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Sun Sep 6 16:23:01 2009 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:23:01 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Wiki page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_print_magazine_proposal In-Reply-To: <20090905160532.GG18490@calliope.phig.org> References: <1252079298.1979.26.camel@PB3.linux> <4AA15A57.4060704@redhat.com> <1252090291.1979.33.camel@PB3.linux> <4AA17656.2080201@redhat.com> <1252142131.1979.44.camel@PB3.linux> <20090905160532.GG18490@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <1252254181.3540.15.camel@PB3.linux> Hi, > > > But lets keep in mind that as far as I know, it is not clear where the > > > content for this magazine will come from. Mel, maybe you can shed some > > > light here? > > > > Given this is in the planning stage, an integral part of planning must > > include the contributions! > > The original proposal from Linux Pro Magazine was built around the > concept of, "We can do all this for Fedora and keep the work load off > of you." Mel's approach, rightly IMO, is to consider, "How much of > this can be done by Fedora contributors, so they can learn from the > professional magazine staff and have a direct hand in creating this > magazine." To me, Mel's idea is far better than the LPM one for a couple of reasons. The most important is that it is the communities efforts (for part of it at least) and secondly is that if we wish to continue with something like this, that we take it as a learning experience with the knowledge of LPM behind it until we're confident to continue it as it stands. > Actually, to be honest, I'd be fine with deciding as a > magazine editorial team to use one specific license to make eventual > content freeing easier. My point exactly - 100 licences, 100 problems. > What I was thinking was a modified form of the "first publication > rights" contract: > > * All content is contractually under the CC BY-SA-NC until six months > after the publication hits the magazine stands. Sorry, being dumb here what is BY-SA-NC? A secondary problem with a time stamp like this is that of back issues and electronic distribution. > I actually feel that 6 months is too long; I'd prefer 3, so that the > content can be used in Fedora while it is still highly relevant. But > I'm not sure that is fair to LPM, especially if this is the first time > they've entered into such a contract. I want to give them enough room > to feel comfortable about making it work. As you say, 6 months to justify the investment is probably about right; they need to see and assess the impact of doing a Fedora special and while they will have some figures available, if it's anything like how it's done in the UK, figures are only useful after about 4 months (takes into account quarterly subscriptions, one offs, back issues et al). For the 3 months, would there be a problem with an "updates" issue detailing the behind the scenes developments for the next version etc? Besides cost that is... I'm quite looking forward to seeing the revised proposal tomorrow from LPM :-) But before I can see that, the day job ;-) TTFN Paul -- ?Sie k?nnen mich aufreizen und wirklich hei? machen! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From kwade at redhat.com Sun Sep 6 17:27:01 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 10:27:01 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Wiki page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_print_magazine_proposal In-Reply-To: <1252254181.3540.15.camel@PB3.linux> References: <1252079298.1979.26.camel@PB3.linux> <4AA15A57.4060704@redhat.com> <1252090291.1979.33.camel@PB3.linux> <4AA17656.2080201@redhat.com> <1252142131.1979.44.camel@PB3.linux> <20090905160532.GG18490@calliope.phig.org> <1252254181.3540.15.camel@PB3.linux> Message-ID: <20090906172701.GK18490@calliope.phig.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 05:23:01PM +0100, Paul wrote: > Sorry, being dumb here what is BY-SA-NC? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Almost-but-not-quite-Free. The copyright holders would agree to remove the NC after X period of time. LPM writers could choose not to remove that; I'm mainly concerned about content where Fedorans own the rights. - 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 orion at cora.nwra.com Tue Sep 8 17:55:09 2009 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:55:09 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License question Message-ID: <4AA69A7D.7060400@cora.nwra.com> Could someone take a look at the following package for me: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/perl-OpenGL-0.58-1.fc11.src.rpm The COPYRIGHT file contains the following: Copyright (c) 1998,1999 Kenneth Albanowski. All rights reserved. Copyright (c) 2007 Bob Free. All rights reserved. Copyright (c) 2009 Chris Marshall. All rights reserved. This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. Some portions of this module, including some code sections in OpenGL.pm and OpenGL.xs (marked by "Melax" comments) are Copyright Stan Melax, as are the files in the example/ directory. This is Stan's original COPYRIGHT message for those works: (c) Copyright 1995, Stan Melax, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Stan Melax Alberta Research Council stan at arc.ab.ca http://www.arc.ab.ca/~stan Please feel free to give me acknowledgement/credit/money/honorable-mention/job-offers/research-funding wherever or whenever appropriate :-) Permission to copy, modify is granted provided that you include the above copyright notice with it. This software is provided as is, and comes with no promises or guarantees. You may only use it if you promise not to sue me or my employer for anything relating to the use of this software :-) OpenGL is a trademark of Silicon Graphics Inc. Special thanks to: Tim Bunce Brian Paul Karl Glazebrook http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~kgb The Alberta Research Council Feel free to email me your name so I can add it to the above list. Acknowledgement and credit for those where acknowledgement and credit is warrented ... yadda , yadda .... bla ... bla ... Some of these examples in the "examples" subdirectory are adapted from the OpenGL Programming Guide. Here's the copyright that was attached to the examples from "OpenGL Programming Guide" by Neider, Davis, and Woo, and published by Addison Wesley: /* * (c) Copyright 1993, Silicon Graphics, Inc. * ALL RIGHTS RESERVED * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for * any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above * copyright notice appear in all copies and that both the copyright notice * and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and that * the name of Silicon Graphics, Inc. not be used in advertising * or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, * written prior permission. * * THE MATERIAL EMBODIED ON THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS" * AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, * INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL SILICON * GRAPHICS, INC. BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANYONE ELSE FOR ANY DIRECT, * SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY * KIND, OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, * LOSS OF PROFIT, LOSS OF USE, SAVINGS OR REVENUE, OR THE CLAIMS OF * THIRD PARTIES, WHETHER OR NOT SILICON GRAPHICS, INC. HAS BEEN * ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSS, HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON * ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE * POSSESSION, USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. * * US Government Users Restricted Rights * Use, duplication, or disclosure by the Government is subject to * restrictions set forth in FAR 52.227.19(c)(2) or subparagraph * (c)(1)(ii) of the Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software * clause at DFARS 252.227-7013 and/or in similar or successor * clauses in the FAR or the DOD or NASA FAR Supplement. * Unpublished-- rights reserved under the copyright laws of the * United States. Contractor/manufacturer is Silicon Graphics, * Inc., 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd., Mountain View, CA 94039-7311. * * OpenGL(TM) is a trademark of Silicon Graphics, Inc. */ glx_procs.h contains the FreeB license copyright. 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 paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Wed Sep 9 12:46:47 2009 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:46:47 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Wiki page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_print_magazine_proposal In-Reply-To: <1252254181.3540.15.camel@PB3.linux> References: <1252079298.1979.26.camel@PB3.linux> <4AA15A57.4060704@redhat.com> <1252090291.1979.33.camel@PB3.linux> <4AA17656.2080201@redhat.com> <1252142131.1979.44.camel@PB3.linux> <20090905160532.GG18490@calliope.phig.org> <1252254181.3540.15.camel@PB3.linux> Message-ID: <1252500407.1955.25.camel@PB3.linux> Hi, > I'm quite looking forward to seeing the revised proposal tomorrow from > LPM :-) Has LPM come back to us yet? TTFN Paul -- ?Sie k?nnen mich aufreizen und wirklich hei? machen! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Sep 10 02:44:15 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:44:15 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Licensing issue in OpenLayers package (already in Fedora) In-Reply-To: <2d319b780908081020u55a2d42eg8a1fa6f8ed8df9a2@mail.gmail.com> References: <2d319b780908021200y53a8c875vc61dee845701d49a@mail.gmail.com> <2d319b780908081020u55a2d42eg8a1fa6f8ed8df9a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AA867FF.9070205@redhat.com> On 08/08/2009 01:20 PM, Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) wrote: > Any thoughts on this solution? Is that legally possible? > > If so, I'll try to contact the writer of the Python implementation to > see if he is willing to relicense his script. Sorry for the delay here, not sure how this fell off my radar. So, it is legally possible to do a clean room reimplementation of this code, but it does not look like that is what happened with the existing jsmin.py. Basically, what someone would have to do is to write a version of jsmin, looking only at an "algorithm description", but never jsmin.c. Red Hat Legal compared this jsmin.py to the jsmin.c code, and it is their opinion that it is not a clean-room reimplementation, but rather a "conscious" translation from C to Python. If I had to guess, if pressed, the jsmin.py author will admit to having looked at jsmin.c. So, you can either find someone to make a jsmin in a clean room reimplementation, then use it, or rework your package to not use it. ~spot From bochecha at fedoraproject.org Sun Sep 13 13:16:42 2009 From: bochecha at fedoraproject.org (Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:16:42 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Licensing issue in OpenLayers package (already in Fedora) In-Reply-To: <4AA867FF.9070205@redhat.com> References: <2d319b780908021200y53a8c875vc61dee845701d49a@mail.gmail.com> <2d319b780908081020u55a2d42eg8a1fa6f8ed8df9a2@mail.gmail.com> <4AA867FF.9070205@redhat.com> Message-ID: <2d319b780909130616s56b32df5t7e9f068758b2b6b3@mail.gmail.com> > So, it is legally possible to do a clean room reimplementation of this > code, but it does not look like that is what happened with the existing > jsmin.py. > > Basically, what someone would have to do is to write a version of jsmin, > looking only at an "algorithm description", but never jsmin.c. Ok, thanks for confirming this was a possibility. > Red Hat Legal compared this jsmin.py to the jsmin.c code, and it is > their opinion that it is not a clean-room reimplementation, but rather a > "conscious" translation from C to Python. > > If I had to guess, if pressed, the jsmin.py author will admit to having > looked at jsmin.c. I actually asked him, to be sure, and that's what he told me as well, that he simply translated into Python. > So, you can either find someone to make a jsmin in a clean room > reimplementation, then use it, or rework your package to not use it. I removed the jsmin tools from the source tarball of OpenLayers and rebuilt it for F-11 and Rawhide (I don't have the commit access in F-10, and it will be EOL-ed soon anyway, if that really matters I'll ask for the commit ACL and do it there as well). In the future, I'll try to see if another Javascript minifier couldn't be used instead of jsmin and what the OpenLayers devs think about it. Best regards, ---------- Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk Tue Sep 15 21:20:32 2009 From: paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk (Paul) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:20:32 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora magazine Message-ID: <1253049632.1934.24.camel@PB3.linux> Hi, Did anything come back from LWP over a possible Fedora mag to co-incide with the release of 12? TTFN Paul -- ?Sie k?nnen mich aufreizen und wirklich hei? machen! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From kwade at redhat.com Wed Sep 16 00:28:02 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:28:02 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora magazine In-Reply-To: <1253049632.1934.24.camel@PB3.linux> References: <1253049632.1934.24.camel@PB3.linux> Message-ID: <20090916002802.GC7684@calliope.phig.org> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:20:32PM +0100, Paul wrote: > Hi, > > Did anything come back from LWP over a possible Fedora mag to co-incide > with the release of 12? Discussion on this topic has been ongoing on fedora-marketing-list. I think the current summary is, it was too late for us to put together what we wanted and how we wanted it for F12, and we're working on the F13 idea. You can check those list archives for more details. - 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 stickster at gmail.com Wed Sep 16 12:40:40 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:40:40 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora magazine In-Reply-To: <20090916002802.GC7684@calliope.phig.org> References: <1253049632.1934.24.camel@PB3.linux> <20090916002802.GC7684@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <20090916124040.GC18731@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 05:28:02PM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:20:32PM +0100, Paul wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Did anything come back from LWP over a possible Fedora mag to co-incide > > with the release of 12? > > Discussion on this topic has been ongoing on fedora-marketing-list. I > think the current summary is, it was too late for us to put together > what we wanted and how we wanted it for F12, and we're working on the > F13 idea. You can check those list archives for more details. Link to Max's message with details: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-marketing-list/2009-September/msg00059.html -- 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 loganjerry at gmail.com Wed Sep 16 18:49:16 2009 From: loganjerry at gmail.com (Jerry James) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:49:16 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Critical Mass Modula-3 license Message-ID: <870180fe0909161149t3f498db5w5af34228e49f2a83@mail.gmail.com> I'm chasing down dependency chains for a program analysis tool that I'd like to see in Fedora. At the bottom of one chain, I found a component that is written in Modula-3! The documentation for that component states that program development and testing has been done with the Critical Mass Modula-3 compiler, which is distributed under 2 licenses: http://www.opencm3.com/COPYRIGHT-CMASS http://www.opencm3.com/COPYRIGHT-DEC Are those licenses acceptable for Fedora? (Not that I'm at all sure I want to try to maintain a Modula-3 package, but if the licenses are okay, I'll give it a shot.) Thanks, -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Sep 16 20:19:44 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:19:44 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Critical Mass Modula-3 license In-Reply-To: <870180fe0909161149t3f498db5w5af34228e49f2a83@mail.gmail.com> References: <870180fe0909161149t3f498db5w5af34228e49f2a83@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AB14860.4080509@redhat.com> On 09/16/2009 02:49 PM, Jerry James wrote: > I'm chasing down dependency chains for a program analysis tool that > I'd like to see in Fedora. At the bottom of one chain, I found a > component that is written in Modula-3! The documentation for that > component states that program development and testing has been done > with the Critical Mass Modula-3 compiler, which is distributed under 2 > licenses: > > http://www.opencm3.com/COPYRIGHT-CMASS > http://www.opencm3.com/COPYRIGHT-DEC > > Are those licenses acceptable for Fedora? (Not that I'm at all sure I > want to try to maintain a Modula-3 package, but if the licenses are > okay, I'll give it a shot.) Same license, different copyright holders. The license is non-free. One of the copyright holders (Critical Mass) now seems to be called IGEN Corporation, so they might be reachable to resolve the licensing issue. The other (Digital Electronics Corp) is now HP, but I wouldn't even know where within HP to start asking them about relicensing that code. The main problem is this clause: LICENSEE hereby grants to CRITICAL MASS a non-exclusive, non-transferable, royalty free right to use, modify, reproduce and distribute with the right to sublicense at any tier, any improvements, enhancements, extensions, or modifications that LICENSEE make to SOFTWARE, provided such are returned to CRITICAL MASS by LICENSEE. It is unclear, but RH Legal feels that this means that in order to use/modify/redistribute this code, you need to send all changes back to the copyright holder (which is very murky, given that the copyright has changed hands several times for both listed copyright holders). If the requirement to "return" changes to the copyright holder was waived, the license might be acceptable. Let me know if you want me to reach out to IGEN and HP on this. ~spot From loganjerry at gmail.com Wed Sep 16 20:32:44 2009 From: loganjerry at gmail.com (Jerry James) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:32:44 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Critical Mass Modula-3 license In-Reply-To: <4AB14860.4080509@redhat.com> References: <870180fe0909161149t3f498db5w5af34228e49f2a83@mail.gmail.com> <4AB14860.4080509@redhat.com> Message-ID: <870180fe0909161332sd9ea867p678c4a9c9e19ce6c@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > Same license, different copyright holders. The license is non-free. One > of the copyright holders (Critical Mass) now seems to be called IGEN > Corporation, so they might be reachable to resolve the licensing issue. > The other (Digital Electronics Corp) is now HP, but I wouldn't even know > where within HP to start asking them about relicensing that code. > > The main problem is this clause: > > ? ?LICENSEE hereby grants to CRITICAL MASS a > ? ?non-exclusive, non-transferable, royalty free right to use, > ? ?modify, reproduce and distribute with the right to sublicense at > ? ?any tier, any improvements, enhancements, extensions, or > ? ?modifications that LICENSEE make to SOFTWARE, provided such are > ? ?returned to CRITICAL MASS by LICENSEE. > > It is unclear, but RH Legal feels that this means that in order to > use/modify/redistribute this code, you need to send all changes back to > the copyright holder (which is very murky, given that the copyright has > changed hands several times for both listed copyright holders). > > If the requirement to "return" changes to the copyright holder was > waived, the license might be acceptable. Let me know if you want me to > reach out to IGEN and HP on this. > > ~spot Thanks, spot. I'm not sure where to go with this. I've located several Modula-3 compilers, but every single one of them is ultimately derived from the DEC implementation, so they will all have this headache. I'm going to have to decide whether I'm really comfortable trying to support a Modula-3 compiler in Fedora. Or I can see if there is any possibility of removing or replacing the Modula-3 component for the tool I'm ultimately interested in. Don't bother doing anything further with this unless I bring it back up. Thank you, -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat Sep 19 02:56:00 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:26:00 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Mozilla Firefox Cleared of U.S Export Rules Message-ID: <4AB44840.4090500@fedoraproject.org> Hi, http://www.internetnews.com/government/article.php/3839831/Mozilla+Firefox+Cleared+of+US+Export+Rules.htm This looks like it could impact Fedora's export regulations as well. Rahul From frankly3d at gmail.com Sat Sep 19 07:37:53 2009 From: frankly3d at gmail.com (Frank Murphy (Frankly3D)) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:37:53 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Mozilla Firefox Cleared of U.S Export Rules Message-ID: <4AB48A51.2080408@gmail.com> Would this have any effect on our Distribution Policy? http://tinyurl.com/lr7yf8 -- Regards, Frank jabber + msn + yahoo = frankly3d http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Frankly3d http://www.frankly3d.com From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat Sep 19 11:59:02 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:29:02 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Mozilla Firefox Cleared of U.S Export Rules In-Reply-To: <4AB48A51.2080408@gmail.com> References: <4AB48A51.2080408@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AB4C786.6050404@fedoraproject.org> On 09/19/2009 01:07 PM, Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) wrote: > Would this have any effect on our Distribution Policy? > http://tinyurl.com/lr7yf8 Not sure why you are asking the exact same question I asked once more. Rahul From dtimms at iinet.net.au Sat Sep 19 14:49:02 2009 From: dtimms at iinet.net.au (David Timms) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:49:02 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License of included source in tnef with Unicode license Message-ID: <4AB4EF5E.8040206@iinet.net.au> Hi, review request [1] for the tnef archive extractor, we request an analysis of the license of the included ConvertUTF.c source, which Jason has copied into the review request. It sort of says that the UTF conversion code can be freely used, as long as it used to create products supporting the UTF standard (yeah, ?). I'm guessing it would be no help in writing a printer driver or first person shooter... Is this license free enough for Fedora ? Cheers, DaveT. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522920 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522920#c2 From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat Sep 19 18:14:32 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:44:32 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: can Libertine fonts be embedded in non-gpl application? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AB51F88.10109@fedoraproject.org> On 09/19/2009 08:17 PM, Brandon Casey wrote: > > I am interested in embedding the Libertine font within an application at > work, so that this application can produce documents using the Libertine > font. The target systems will not have the Libertine fonts installed. > I know I can distribute the font files along side the application, but > it would be nice if that was not necessary. The Libertine fonts are > licensed as GPL with a font embedding exception. The wording of the > exception talks about embedding the fonts in a "document". Would > embedding the font within the application (non-gpl) fall under the > category of "document", or would the compiled binary now fall under the > terms of the GPL (which my employer is not interested in)? > > Any help or pointers to the appropriate source (possibly at Redhat) to > contact is appreciated. Copying Fedora Legal list which is the right place for legal questions. Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Sep 22 18:30:18 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:30:18 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: can Libertine fonts be embedded in non-gpl application? In-Reply-To: <4AB51F88.10109@fedoraproject.org> References: <4AB51F88.10109@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4AB917BA.6090701@redhat.com> On 09/19/2009 02:14 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 09/19/2009 08:17 PM, Brandon Casey wrote: >> >> I am interested in embedding the Libertine font within an application at >> work, so that this application can produce documents using the Libertine >> font. The target systems will not have the Libertine fonts installed. >> I know I can distribute the font files along side the application, but >> it would be nice if that was not necessary. The Libertine fonts are >> licensed as GPL with a font embedding exception. The wording of the >> exception talks about embedding the fonts in a "document". Would >> embedding the font within the application (non-gpl) fall under the >> category of "document", or would the compiled binary now fall under the >> terms of the GPL (which my employer is not interested in)? >> >> Any help or pointers to the appropriate source (possibly at Redhat) to >> contact is appreciated. I am assuming that you are referring to the "libertine" font family, and not the "Liberation" font family. The "Libertine" font family is dual licensed, available under either the terms of the GPL with font exception or the OFL. Now, based on what you've said above, I'm assuming that you would like to embed the font into the application, and not simply bundle the font as a separate file to be installed along with the application. At the same time, you do not want the application to be affected by the GPL license of the font. It is my opinion (and IANAL) that the the GPL font exception would not cover that use case. The OFL seems to be more permissive in this manner, but I think that the application would need to be compatible with the OFL licensing (and should you decide to go down that road, you should retain counsel to determine whether or not that possibility is feasible). A much cleaner solution would be to bundle the font along with the application (and install it on the target systems), and use it under the terms of the OFL. See: http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=OFL-FAQ_web#dad9e15e Specifically, Question 1.5. Hope that helps, ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Sep 24 10:09:15 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:39:15 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Adobe CMap and AGLFN data now free software! Message-ID: <4ABB454B.2090703@fedoraproject.org> Hi, FYI, http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/log/2009/09/24/adobe-data-freed/ Rahul From jan.klepek at brandforge.sk Fri Sep 25 05:28:20 2009 From: jan.klepek at brandforge.sk (Jan Klepek) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:28:20 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] rubygem GPLv3 package requiring GPLv2 package Message-ID: <1253856500.2494.10.camel@metamfetamin> Hi, I'm working on packaging rubygem-ditz which is licensed under GPLv3 ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525211 ). Ditz require library rubygem-trollop which is under GPLv2 ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525210 ). My question is if this is ok for fedora and FE-LEGAL block could be removed from bug 525211 or if upstream will need to change licensing or what should be done. I think that this is the case which is mentioned in Licensing FAQ (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#What_about_interpreted_languages_.28perl.2C_python.2C_etc.29.3F_If_I_have_a_package_written_in_an_interpreted_language.2C_and_it_pulls_in_code_.28of_the_same_language.29_from_a_different.2C_independent_package_at_runtime.2C_should_I_take_its_license_into_account_when_tagging_my_package.3F) Any idea? Thanks, Best Regards, Jan Klepek From tibbs at math.uh.edu Fri Sep 25 06:22:57 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:22:57 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] rubygem GPLv3 package requiring GPLv2 package In-Reply-To: <1253856500.2494.10.camel@metamfetamin> (Jan Klepek's message of "Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:28:20 +0200") References: <1253856500.2494.10.camel@metamfetamin> Message-ID: >>>>> "JK" == Jan Klepek writes: JK> Hi, I'm working on packaging rubygem-ditz which is licensed under JK> GPLv3 ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525211 ). Ditz JK> require library rubygem-trollop which is under GPLv2 ( JK> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525210 ). If there's no actual compilation of differently licensed source code involved, I believe this situation is explicitly covered in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ - J< From phamdackhanh at gmail.com Sat Sep 26 14:06:46 2009 From: phamdackhanh at gmail.com (Pham Dac Khanh - Gmail) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:06:46 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] [Enforced to uninstall Fedora] Intellectual Property, Brain Copying and Convert-Slum War in Vietnam business Message-ID: Dear who are concerned, Criminal political economic network of Vietnam ?common properties? government enforced to uninstall Fedora software downloaded from oversea mirrors site and threated If you want to marketing Fedora in oversea location, you have to ?down knees?. Satellite using in commercial communication is popular. One of Vietnam ?common properties? government perpetrators, Minister of Defense and their subsidiary corporations, used satellite mind control weapons in Vietnam business to control the consumers and to grow their revenue. See more here http://wordpressblog.dakha.com . I currently do not have a nationality. I am a victim of Convert-Slum war on political business from 2003 till now. Chairman of Vietnam ?common properties? government - Nguyen Minh Triet usually threaten to me by satellite mind control weapon that the business is provided for their exclusive party, political economic wing and china refugees in past. Further, I am a victim of Intellectual Property robbing ( brain copying and brain reading) by satellite mind control weapon, a massive destroying weapon. They read my brain and secret business of selling plan. They erased my brain, English skills and knowledge self-learned. Perpetrators tracked my brain each word for re-valuing as perpetrator said the tuition of them are not enough and wanted to collect additional tax in oversea. Vietnam ?common properties? government used a lot of open sources and illegal cracked software in business but no organization cost their using, profit and future profit. They copied brain data of CEO, Economic Leader, Specialist, etc to set-up to brain?s their wings. See U.S secret never told and Fortune Profit of PC OS & Anti Virus captured by Vietnam oversea spies. With satellite massive destroying weapons, Vietnam government has been making hidden criminal political economic strategy in wired and wireless network. Vietnam governors have been taking bribes daily. They have been spending bribes to launder in business entities, banks, financial capital, oversea investment and their relative oversea education such car, housing and re-investment. In addition, I was enforced to carry heroin and money laundering for their Vietnam ?common properties? government, nation bank and commercial banks. Please see the attached file for statistic of drug cultivation and production. I have been attacking (torturing, harassing, simulating politic economic, sex rape, mind-controlled family treating conflict and business & financial terrorizing). Perpetrators modified the facts of my memory and brain erasing. Perpetrators usually used the animations and voices of U.S well-known people, economic people and politicians during torture and harassing by satellite mind control weapon (television & radio media hacking and dream manipulation), satellite microwave weapon, and directed energy weapon. I was jailed at home and the mind was jailed. I have been not belonging perpetrators government as bellow story. I have been remaining company owner business but perpetrators attempted to terrorize all incomes and end inheritance-blooding marrying relationship. Perpetrators attempted to abuse (paint bad and will notify these backing to) many powerful people including politicians of the moving next countries of perpetrators thought. I am attempting to find and save persuade evidences and I wonder that obtained evidences above are unsure persuade evidences. I attempted to record ultra low/ high frequencies around and sent to Investigation for decoding. Perpetrators attempted to torture me to out of energy and bio-energy of my brain to stop finding brainwave recording equipments. I hope you will help to find the evidences of perpetrators international criminals network. Perpetrators controlled my family to move out of current city for treating to isolate me from where my story and evidences occurred. Following is more information of my story in brief and full. Under many years tortured and violated in Vietnam business by satellite mind control and satellite microwave weapon of "Common Properties" Vietcombank and Public's Securities in Vietnam, I could not live like a human. Perpetrators erased my English skills by satellite brain erasing weapon. Because perpetrators did not want me to use English, I had to give up my class in an English Center and gave up studying at home. In 2008, perpetrators used above weapons to enforce me leave some classes that I was studying. Perpetrators tortured and harassed for bribes everyday. Perpetrators attempted to terrorize my finance and business for dropping me down to be out of money step by step and will join their criminals network. I want to tell the torture and violation for bribes in brief as following:- MY STORY IN BRIEF - 9/2002: Established food trading company. Business is alright. - 2003: Open wider to trading more products. My company opened an account at Vietcombank to make a payment for oversea partners. Vietcombank is possessed of ?Common Properties? Government in Vietnam. For that, under-table money for them is certain and non-stop at this level. By ?tricks of requesting under-table money?, staffs of Vietcombank requested more under-table money. I also gave money to them but they did not stop at this. What they want are my good-selling products and making profitable for my company. They wanted to eat ?all?: money, business and brain data later. After, they purposely harassed my girlfriend in trouble for requesting more money. My girlfriend and I argued together for that. And my girlfriend said ?Vietnam country is that: harassing for bribes, pestering for bribes. And do not like them?. She broke-up with me for that harassing action. I was shocked. I was extremely up-set and told the truth to Tuoi Tre newspaper and Thanh Nien newspaper via internet but no any sound responded from them. In disorder status, I did not care that newspapers are from ?Common Properties? Party. After I knew that newspapers made a cover of tricking Vietnamese. - In the middle of 2003, I was received many notifies of killing by under-cover faces to rob my business. My brain was read by them at that time. I was monitored by under-cover faces or organized gang stalking of Vietcombank. - In 2004 to 2009, Vietcombank and their devil hands continuously warned to kill me, brutally torture and sometimes enforced to leave Vietnam. They knew everything about me such as mind, facts in past, memory, plan to do as study abroad, feelings, everything including control my behavior, moto and what to say. Vietcombank?s devil hands are many people of ?Common Properties? Public?s Securities. Weapons they used are Satellite Mind Control weapon and Satellite Microwave weapon. These weapon used for warfare. They used satellite microwave weapon to shoot my brain till to be crazy and closing death. They, ?Common Properties? Vietcombank and Public?s Securities, are bloodthirsty and brutal devils. They are criminals against to humanity. Strait Times Singapore: Here?s a tip: Things in Vietnam work if the price is right Comment of a Vietnamese in oversea: As a Vietnamese living overseas, I feel ashamed of the corruption in Vietnam. I do hope Singaporeans who come to do business in Vietnam will set up good examples for local government official and people there. I feel much more ashamed by saying so when Vietnam has to need outside people to help them clean themselves? ?What makes the situation worse is that corruption in Vietnam is not discussed openly because of tight state censorship?. Vietnam Communist Government disgraces their people! Posted by: Danchimviet07 at Mon Sep 17 10:02:55 SGT 2007 The Japan Times: Four bribes to Vietnam official tied to PCI exec According to Public Opinion, people fingered bribes in ODA are ?Common Properties? Government Chairman Nguyen Minh Triet, ?Common Properties? Secretary Le Thanh Hai of their HCMC, ?Common Properties? Huynh Ngoc Sy, ?Common Properties? Le Qua, Son-in-law of Secretary ?Common Properties? Party Nong Duc Manh. The Financial Times: Gifts of Vietnamese bauxite to china valued billions U.S. dollars Take Nguyen Tan Dung, Vietnam?s prime minister. He recently spent a week touring China, having, like Mr Sarkozy, travelled for the privilege of a hearing. He brought with him gifts of Vietnamese bauxite, the main raw material for aluminium, humbly beseeching China for investments of up to $15bn in what are the world?s third largest reserves of the ore. TORTURE AND VIOLATION IN BRIEF - Weapons : Satellite Mind Control, Satellite Behavior Control, Satellite Brains Communication Network, Satellite Microwave Weapon, Satellite Laser weapon and unknown Weapon. These weapons are also called Directed Energy and Neurological Weapon. - Methods : a. After reading my brain, they used the persons who have similar body parts or faces to terrorize my mind, my mental sense. Slit my relationship and isolate me alone from society community. b. Trapping plan. Then using above weapons to control and affect my mind and behavior. Making decisions in mind for me while I do not know. c. When going out and working, they used the weapons (including V2K: voice to skull) to project into my mind for threatening sound and words such as "go away! shit!". Project many strange pictures in mind. Enforce to do next action when looking or seeing a action, otherwise bad-hearted faces appeared and threatened before. And now perps used above weapons. Perps used brains communication network to control many persons to act following their goals whereas controlled persons did not know about this. Perps did that for suppressing and torturing victims. d. They torture in mind and do not allow to thinking. When thinking about something, they immediately torture to make a threatening sense. e. They projected and shoot microwave (microwave weapon used in military) to my brain. f. They used other unknown weapons to dis-appear my tongue (to make sense about why report to newspapers for the undertable-money of Vietcombank's staff) and bend round my body. They sucked out the water in my body by a unknown weapon. They sliced/incised my inside-body and sinews with brutal pain but no remaining trace. g. Enforce to be a criminal such as selling and carrying heroin, gypsy broker for them (READ MORE ON MY BLOG). h. Language erasing: "goodnight" to be come "good and night words" or "look night" or "god light" or something like that. Ear erasing: the same with language erasing. The sound is made by different frequencies rate. Sight erasing: when seeing anything, they threaten and project microwave and project sounds no through ears to brain for making my mind to be crazy. All doing are to make "blind" of seeing, thinking, hearing and understanding. i. Sex violation: project sex scenes in mind and sex talking. Then enforced to fuck a gypsy but I denied. Prevented me to marry and have a child. Perps acted as criminals of killing inheritable-blooding. j. Private: watch all private things such as toilet, bathing, reproduction organ (penis, head of penis). k. Torture and simulate situations about business, religious and politics such as enforcing and threatening implemented by above weapons. Perps attempted to use copied motos of U.S (animations, styles of emotion and voices). politicians and well-knowing people such as Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush, John McCain, Barrack Obama, Bill Gates and other in Defense to libel the imagines during torture and suppression. Perps injected terrorist data to my brain and made bold-thought to terrorize U.S. Attempting to enforce me to abroad after period of torture. (see daily recording http://twitter.com/khanhpham65 or download). l. Brutal discrimination such as all businesses, women, places and etc are reserved for their wing and favorite races because I was born in middle of Vietnam and for reported action to newspapers referring to the undertable-money/bribes/corruption of Vietcombank's staffs. m. All my feelings, seeings and dreaming are catch by them under threatening by above weapons. n. One of brain erasing method is when I think example: "Today I am very tired", they project a person named "Mr. Tiree" to appear in brain. And they repeat this action in long period of time. o. They torture me 24x7. p. They usually rouse me to do a crazy action or illegal action. q. After each torture day, they erased my brain. r. Their actions are likely Red Khmer criminals. In-humanity, Cruel Actions and Crimes against humanity. s. Enforce and threaten me to go out of my country. I had to go out of Vietnam. I went to Kulalumpur (Malaysia) and I was brutally tortured in a virtual prison. Perps said I am a prisoner of C.I.A. I seldom go out of home and I was jailed in home. - Injuries: Any pain in body will take a trip to the brain. The brain is exactly a place to contain all pains that a person feel about. I could not stand their brutal torture. Many times I thought about the death and really want to die. Injured brain and blindness. These tortures could make me to be cancer brain sickness. "Common Properties" Vietcombank and Public's Securities are inhumanity and criminals against human. - Wishes: In future, any organization brings Vietcombank wing's devils to ICC (International Criminal Court) is a hope for Vietnam Human Being. Leading many brutal-torture years: Nguyen Phuoc Thanh ? Vietcombank, Secretary ?Common Properties? Le Thanh Hai, ?Common Properties? Minister of Public?s Securities Le Hong Anh, Lead of "Common Properties" Securities Department in their Hcmc Nguyen Chi Thanh and others involved (Minister of Defense ?Common Properties? Phung Quanh Thanh, Malaysia government and Chairman of Vietnam government ?Common Properties? Nguyen Minh Triet). Devils of ?Common Properties? Vietcombank and Public?s Securities used weapons in warfare (as above) for brutally suppressing and torturing in Vietnam business. After these devils have finished torture, they brain-washed and brain-erased for forgot and no problems as they said. I daily wrote some facts that I could remember. They followed the slogan ?eat all? (bribes, robbing business, eat brain: brain-erasing to set-up their data into my brain). They enforced ?step by step? me to the death in life by trapping of controlling brain from satellite mind control weapon. And they connected with Malaysia Government to brutally torture inhumanity in Kula Lumpur. I was in prison in Malaysia established by ?Common Properties? Vietcombank and Public?s Securities. During brutally torture, they called this is C.I.A prison and some of them came from Washington D.C. I am only a business owner in a trading company and surely not involved to any U.S policies and not came to U.S yet. After escaped and backed in Vietnam, I was daily tortured 24 hours a day and 7 days a week by behavior control & moving/motor control of satellite mind control weapon and terrorized by satellite neurological weapon. Killing victim to be death all when they set-up/ inject other brain data to my brain. And I will never be me and they removed my family love out me. They could boost up the brain and when they release I unlike a human with suspend thinking. Daily I was stood by dirty words, slandering & reviling from them and enforced to leave Vietnam for releasing the business on hand to them and their ?che^ch or ta`u?, chinese who were asylum seekers in Vietnam in past. Night and day, they set-up/ injected to make ?bold-thought? for affirming that Saigon is their ?che^ch?. ?When their sons went abroad and called ?what relative-blooding oversea Vietnamese is!? without ashamed. Enforced to leave Vietnam and after that said ?what relative-blooding Vietnamese!??. So why object Exclusive ?Common Properties? Vietnam Party while they robbed and brutally suppressed Vietnamese in my country. Please read my full story and more information in my blog (including videos and frequencies recorded): http://wordpressblog.dakha.com. It will be greatly appreciated for your reply on above. Best regards, Khanh Dac Pham Director Dakha Co., Ltd Tel: (848) 38539662 New Fax: +1 (815) 366 8071 / +1 (206) 203 4719 Mobile: 84 (0) 909905651 Fax: (848) 38539673 (just death) / just added new fax: 44 (0) 151 672 0428 (just be deactivated) Email: khanh at dakha.com; khanh.pham at dakha.com; phamdackhanh at gmail.com Add1: 48 Binh Tay, P.1, Dist 6, Saigon, Vietnam. Add2: 36 Pham Dinh Ho, P.2, Dist 6, Saigon, Vietnam. Old add: 75 Road No 24, Ward 1, Dist 6, Saigon, Vietnam. Blog: http://wordpressblog.dakha.com Yahoo Id & MSN: khanhpham65 Videos: http://www.youtube.com/khanhpham65 Internet: ADSL is death. And I have changed to a prison adsl provider EVN with many nearby IPs attacking and hacking to my computer. The former general director of this provider was arrested because of bribing and bumming. PLEASE KINDLY SHARE WITH ALL OF CONGRESS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.png Type: image/png Size: 176 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 172 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: My-Story-of-Brain-Reading-Copying-in-Vietnam-Biz-SOS.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 409896 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Twitter-August-29-2009.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 44190 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Heroin Information and Money Laundering - WorldBank.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 603939 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SOS-Murdering Planned.zip Type: application/x-zip-compressed Size: 30087 bytes Desc: not available URL: