rpms/dumb/devel dumb-0.9.3-license-clarification.patch, NONE, 1.1 license-clarification.eml, NONE, 1.1 dumb.spec, 1.4, 1.5

Tue Aug 7 16:07:25 UTC 2007

Author: jwrdegoede

Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/dumb/devel
In directory cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv13143

Modified Files:
	dumb.spec 
Added Files:
	dumb-0.9.3-license-clarification.patch 
	license-clarification.eml 
Log Message:
* Tue Aug  7 2007 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> 0.9.3-6
- Clarify license after talking about it with upstream
- Include permission notice from upstream for license clarification
- Update License tag for new Licensing Guidelines compliance


dumb-0.9.3-license-clarification.patch:

--- NEW FILE dumb-0.9.3-license-clarification.patch ---
diff -up dumb-0.9.3/licence.txt~ dumb-0.9.3/licence.txt
--- dumb-0.9.3/licence.txt~	2007-08-07 17:47:40.000000000 +0200
+++ dumb-0.9.3/licence.txt	2007-08-07 17:47:40.000000000 +0200
@@ -69,9 +69,18 @@ freely, subject to the following restric
    far as possible and all other clauses shall continue to apply in full
    force.
 
+When applied literally, clauses 4-6 of this license would make this
+license non-free. Thankfully, these clauses are meant only for humor
+value, and are not considered binding by either Fedora or upstream DUMB. (*)
+
 We regret that we cannot provide any warranty, not even the implied warranty
 of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.
 
 Some files generated or copied by automake, autoconf and friends are
 available in an extra download. These fall under separate licences but are
 all free to distribute. Please check their licences as necessary.
+
+
+(*) This text has been added to the license by Fedora, with permission of
+the original DUMB authors (DUMB upstream), see license-clarification.eml for
+their permission.


--- NEW FILE license-clarification.eml ---
Message-ID: <46B75BC0.20002 at hhs.nl>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:34:56 +0200
From: Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070615)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:  entheh at users.sf.net
Subject: DUMB license
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

First let me start by introducing myself, I'm a linux enthousiast / developer 
and a Fedora contributer. I maintain the dumb package for Fedora.

Currently we are doing a licensing audit of all our packages (what a pain) 
because of the coming of GPL version 3.

During this audit the DUMB license has been held in the light too, and it has 
been deemed a non free license by the lawyers :(

The problem are the clauses 4 and 5, the lawyers see this as non free "as it 
imposes absurd restrictions of use on the users of the software". I noticed in 
the Debina package that you've given Debian permission to distribute dumb with 
the 4th and 5th clause removed from the license (and thus the 6th too as that 
then no longer is necessary). If you could give us permission to do the same 
that would be great.

A mail saying you will allow this is enough

Many Thanks & Regards,

Hans

---

Return-Path: <entheh at users.sf.net>
Received: from koko.hhs.nl ([145.52.2.16] verified)
  by hhs.nl (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.6)
  with ESMTP id 72785570 for j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:09:05 +0200
Received: from exim by koko.hhs.nl with spam-scanned (Exim 4.62)
	(envelope-from <entheh at users.sf.net>)
	id 1II70o-000124-RY
	for j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:09:05 +0200
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on koko.hhs.nl
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=ham
	version=3.1.8
Received: from exim (helo=koko)
	by koko.hhs.nl with local-smtp (Exim 4.62)
	(envelope-from <entheh at users.sf.net>)
	id 1II70n-00011u-TJ
	for j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:09:01 +0200
Received: from [212.74.100.53] (port=27938 helo=mk-filter-2-a-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com)
	by koko.hhs.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.62)
	(envelope-from <entheh at users.sf.net>)
	id 1II70n-00011a-At
	for j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:09:01 +0200
X-Trace: 599769008-mk-filter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com-B2C-$THROTTLED-DYNAMIC-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 88.106.233.110
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AihcAJoAt0ZYaulu/2dsb2JhbACBOGk
Received: from 88-106-233-110.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com ([88.106.233.110])
  by smtp.business.co.uk with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2007 19:09:00 +0100
From: Ben Davis <entheh at users.sf.net>
To: Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl>
Subject: Re: DUMB license
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 19:09:20 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
References: <46B75BC0.20002 at hhs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <46B75BC0.20002 at hhs.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200708061909.21731.entheh at users.sf.net>
X-Anti-Virus: Kaspersky Anti-Virus for MailServers 5.5.2/RELEASE, bases: 06082007 #352893, status: clean

Hi :)

Technically, I renounced Clause 4 for Debian, back when DUMB v0.9.2 was the 
latest version and Clauses 5 and 6 didn't exist. I had hoped 6 would solve 
the problem. I never explicitly gave permission for them to remove the jokes 
from the licence.

I had also hoped that Clause 5 wouldn't be an issue because it has the get-out 
clause "if deemed appropriate", and possibly that Clause 4 is ill-defined 
because "Program" is never defined anywhere :D but oh well.

You have my permission to add a note (I suggest above Clause 4) that Clauses 4 
and 5 (and possibly 6) do not apply to users/maintainers/whoever (whichever 
word or words fit best for you) of Fedora, but I'd appreciate it if, unlike 
Debian, you kept the text of the clauses in there for their humour value.

Is this satisfactory?

Ben

On Monday 06 August 2007, you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> First let me start by introducing myself, I'm a linux enthousiast /
> developer and a Fedora contributer. I maintain the dumb package for Fedora.
>
> Currently we are doing a licensing audit of all our packages (what a pain)
> because of the coming of GPL version 3.
>
> During this audit the DUMB license has been held in the light too, and it
> has been deemed a non free license by the lawyers :(
>
> The problem are the clauses 4 and 5, the lawyers see this as non free "as
> it imposes absurd restrictions of use on the users of the software". I
> noticed in the Debina package that you've given Debian permission to
> distribute dumb with the 4th and 5th clause removed from the license (and
> thus the 6th too as that then no longer is necessary). If you could give us
> permission to do the same that would be great.
>
> A mail saying you will allow this is enough
>
> Many Thanks & Regards,
>
> Hans

---

Message-ID: <46B76569.6030306 at hhs.nl>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:16:09 +0200
From: Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070615)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Davis <entheh at users.sf.net>
Subject: Re: DUMB license
References: <46B75BC0.20002 at hhs.nl> <200708061909.21731.entheh at users.sf.net>
In-Reply-To: <200708061909.21731.entheh at users.sf.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ben Davis wrote:
> Hi :)
> 

Hi,

Thanks for the quick response!

> Technically, I renounced Clause 4 for Debian, back when DUMB v0.9.2 was the 
> latest version and Clauses 5 and 6 didn't exist. I had hoped 6 would solve 
> the problem. I never explicitly gave permission for them to remove the jokes 
> from the licence.
> 

They haven't removed the joke, see:
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/libd/libdumb/libdumb_0.9.3-5/libdumb1.copyright

They probably never noticed the license change when upgrading to 0.9.3, but 
even with the tekst there although perhaps GPL compatible it is not a Free 
software license, because when used with non GPL software clauses 4 and 5 will 
be in effect, making it non free.

> I had also hoped that Clause 5 wouldn't be an issue because it has the get-out 
> clause "if deemed appropriate", and possibly that Clause 4 is ill-defined 
> because "Program" is never defined anywhere :D but oh well.
> 
> You have my permission to add a note (I suggest above Clause 4) that Clauses 4 
> and 5 (and possibly 6) do not apply to users/maintainers/whoever (whichever 
> word or words fit best for you) of Fedora, but I'd appreciate it if, unlike 
> Debian, you kept the text of the clauses in there for their humour value.
> 
> Is this satisfactory?
> 

Erm, how about adding a text, that clauses 4-6 are there for humor only and are 
not part of the official license?

Adding a text that they do not apply to Fedora .... is not enough, because we 
(Fedora) want people to be able to take Fedora and do with it whatever they 
want, at which moment it could no longer be Fedora, and then the clauses would 
apply again. Think like how ubuntu is based on Debian.

Thanks & Regards,

Hans

---

Return-Path: <entheh at users.sf.net>
Received: from koko.hhs.nl ([145.52.2.16] verified)
  by hhs.nl (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.6)
  with ESMTP id 72786425 for j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:24:35 +0200
Received: from exim by koko.hhs.nl with spam-scanned (Exim 4.62)
	(envelope-from <entheh at users.sf.net>)
	id 1II7Fq-0002Z7-0g
	for j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:24:35 +0200
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on koko.hhs.nl
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	version=3.1.8
Received: from exim (helo=koko)
	by koko.hhs.nl with local-smtp (Exim 4.62)
	(envelope-from <entheh at users.sf.net>)
	id 1II7Fp-0002Z4-TU
	for j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:24:33 +0200
Received: from [212.74.100.53] (port=19436 helo=mk-filter-2-a-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com)
	by koko.hhs.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.62)
	(envelope-from <entheh at users.sf.net>)
	id 1II7Fp-0002Yz-K7
	for j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:24:33 +0200
X-Trace: 599774314-mk-filter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com-B2C-$THROTTLED-DYNAMIC-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 88.106.233.110
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AihcAD8Ct0ZYaulu/2dsb2JhbACBOGk
Received: from 88-106-233-110.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com ([88.106.233.110])
  by smtp.business.co.uk with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2007 19:24:33 +0100
From: Ben Davis <entheh at users.sf.net>
To: Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl>
Subject: Re: DUMB license
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 19:24:59 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
References: <46B75BC0.20002 at hhs.nl> <200708061909.21731.entheh at users.sf.net> <46B76569.6030306 at hhs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <46B76569.6030306 at hhs.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200708061924.59814.entheh at users.sf.net>
X-Anti-Virus: Kaspersky Anti-Virus for MailServers 5.5.2/RELEASE, bases: 06082007 #352893, status: clean

On Monday 06 August 2007, you wrote:
> Ben Davis wrote:
> > Hi :)
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the quick response!
>
> > Technically, I renounced Clause 4 for Debian, back when DUMB v0.9.2 was
> > the latest version and Clauses 5 and 6 didn't exist. I had hoped 6 would
> > solve the problem. I never explicitly gave permission for them to remove
> > the jokes from the licence.
>
> They haven't removed the joke, see:
> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/libd/libdumb/libdumb_0.9.3-
>5/libdumb1.copyright
>
> They probably never noticed the license change when upgrading to 0.9.3, but
> even with the tekst there although perhaps GPL compatible it is not a Free
> software license, because when used with non GPL software clauses 4 and 5
> will be in effect, making it non free.

I believe the problem was put to me at the time in terms of the GPL, so that's 
why I phrased Clause 6 the way I did. Not my fault!!

> > I had also hoped that Clause 5 wouldn't be an issue because it has the
> > get-out clause "if deemed appropriate", and possibly that Clause 4 is
> > ill-defined because "Program" is never defined anywhere :D but oh well.
> >
> > You have my permission to add a note (I suggest above Clause 4) that
> > Clauses 4 and 5 (and possibly 6) do not apply to
> > users/maintainers/whoever (whichever word or words fit best for you) of
> > Fedora, but I'd appreciate it if, unlike Debian, you kept the text of the
> > clauses in there for their humour value.
> >
> > Is this satisfactory?
>
> Erm, how about adding a text, that clauses 4-6 are there for humor only and
> are not part of the official license?

Yes, that will be acceptable. I misunderstood your requirements, sorry :)

> Adding a text that they do not apply to Fedora .... is not enough, because
> we (Fedora) want people to be able to take Fedora and do with it whatever
> they want, at which moment it could no longer be Fedora, and then the
> clauses would apply again. Think like how ubuntu is based on Debian.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
>
> Hans

You're welcome,

Ben



Index: dumb.spec
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/dumb/devel/dumb.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -r1.4 -r1.5
--- dumb.spec	28 Aug 2006 11:25:06 -0000	1.4
+++ dumb.spec	7 Aug 2007 16:06:52 -0000	1.5
@@ -1,13 +1,15 @@
 Name:           dumb
 Version:        0.9.3
-Release:        5%{?dist}
+Release:        6%{?dist}
 Summary:        IT, XM, S3M and MOD player library
 Group:          System Environment/Libraries
-License:        GPL-Compatible
+License:        zlib
 URL:            http://dumb.sourceforge.net/
-Source0:        http://dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
-Source1:        http://dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}-autotools.tar.gz
+Source0:        http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
+Source1:        http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}-autotools.tar.gz
+Source2:        license-clarification.eml
 Patch0:         dumb-0.9.3-CVE-2006-3668.patch
+Patch1:         dumb-0.9.3-license-clarification.patch
 BuildRoot:      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 BuildRequires:  allegro-devel
 
@@ -31,6 +33,8 @@
 %prep
 %setup -q -b 01
 %patch0 -p1 -z .cve-2006-3668
+%patch1 -p1
+cp %{SOURCE2} .
 
 
 %build
@@ -56,7 +60,7 @@
 
 %files
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
-%doc licence.txt release.txt readme.txt
+%doc licence.txt release.txt readme.txt license-clarification.eml
 %{_bindir}/dumb*
 %{_libdir}/lib*-%{version}.so
 
@@ -69,6 +73,11 @@
 
 
 %changelog
+* Tue Aug  7 2007 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> 0.9.3-6
+- Clarify license after talking about it with upstream
+- Include permission notice from upstream for license clarification
+- Update License tag for new Licensing Guidelines compliance
+
 * Mon Aug 28 2006 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> 0.9.3-5
 - FE6 Rebuild
 
@@ -79,7 +88,7 @@
 - Add Requires: allegro-devel to -devel package
 
 * Thu Mar 16 2006 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> 0.9.3-2
-- Drop modplug.txt from %doc and move release.txt and readme.txt from the
+- Drop modplug.txt from %%doc and move release.txt and readme.txt from the
  -devel package to the main package (bz 185576).
 
 * Fri Jan 27 2006 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> 0.9.3-1


