From dan at danny.cz Fri Aug 1 10:09:55 2008 From: dan at danny.cz (Dan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hor=E1k?=) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:09:55 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Open CASCADE Technology Public License In-Reply-To: <1216727143.3444.3.camel@eagle.danny.cz> References: <1216727143.3444.3.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Message-ID: <1217585395.3484.14.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Dan Hor?k p??e v ?t 22. 07. 2008 v 13:45 +0200: > Hi, > > can you give me "Fedora acceptability statement" for the Open CASCADE > Technology Public License available at > http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ ? > One note - the same company (Open CASCADE S.A.S.) develops and distributes an application called SALOME (http://www.salome-platform.org/) that is licensed under LGPL and it is linked to OpenCascade libraries. That can make a presumption that Open CASCADE Technology Public License is LGPL compatible. Dan From tibbs at math.uh.edu Fri Aug 15 23:22:46 2008 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: 15 Aug 2008 18:22:46 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Trusting upstream website when code has no license Message-ID: This may be a FAQ, but searching didn't turn it up. If it's not already documented, perhaps we could get it into the FAQ page because this question comes up often enough when doing package reviews. The problem is code which has no license information at all. Sometimes there are copyright notices, sometimes not, and no mention whatsoever of any type of license. However, there's a mention of a license at the upstream web site. Now, obviously upstream should be prodded to get with the program. But in the interim, is it sufficient to simply refer to the upstream web site? Keep a copy of it in the package (in case they decide to change it for some reason)? Or should this kind of software be avoided entirely until upstream decides to release a version with a properly included license? - J< From rfontana at redhat.com Sat Aug 16 01:56:59 2008 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:56:59 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Trusting upstream website when code has no license In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080815215659.1564c1a2@calliope> Disclaimer: IAARHL, IANYL, TINLA On 15 Aug 2008 18:22:46 -0500 Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > The problem is code which has no license information at all. > Sometimes there are copyright notices, sometimes not, and no mention > whatsoever of any type of license. However, there's a mention of a > license at the upstream web site. > > Now, obviously upstream should be prodded to get with the program. > But in the interim, is it sufficient to simply refer to the upstream > web site? Keep a copy of it in the package (in case they decide to > change it for some reason)? Or should this kind of software be > avoided entirely until upstream decides to release a version with a > properly included license? I'd say the last option is the most appropriate one. - RF From tibbs at math.uh.edu Sat Aug 16 02:13:58 2008 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: 15 Aug 2008 21:13:58 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Trusting upstream website when code has no license In-Reply-To: <20080815215659.1564c1a2@calliope> References: <20080815215659.1564c1a2@calliope> Message-ID: >>>>> "RF" == Richard Fontana writes: RF> Disclaimer: IAARHL, IANYL, TINLA No problem. However, please forgive this response for I am new to this list and don't know who everyone is. I simply do not know if should take your comments as rendered opinion for the purposes of acceptance of packages into Fedora. I do a large amount of new package review and run into odd license questions nearly every day. Often I ping spot for these but I figured I'd try to get closer to the source. I just don't know who the sources actually are yet. - J< From rfontana at redhat.com Sat Aug 16 02:42:42 2008 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:42:42 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Trusting upstream website when code has no license In-Reply-To: References: <20080815215659.1564c1a2@calliope> Message-ID: <20080815224242.4471a1ae@calliope> On 15 Aug 2008 21:13:58 -0500 Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "RF" == Richard Fontana writes: > > RF> Disclaimer: IAARHL, IANYL, TINLA > > No problem. However, please forgive this response for I am new to > this list and don't know who everyone is. I simply do not know if > should take your comments as rendered opinion for the purposes of > acceptance of packages into Fedora. Oh, I wasn't rendering any sort of official opinion for Fedora (I would look to spot for that). Rather, I think the question is an unusually easy one to answer. No one ought to use code that has no licensing information in it, and I think it's best to assume that it's too risky for anyone to rely on an informal statement on a web site. Educating upstream developers about this is a good idea, of course. - RF From tinh.truong at evolus.vn Mon Aug 18 03:32:25 2008 From: tinh.truong at evolus.vn (=?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=ADnh_Tr=C6=B0=C6=A1ng_Xu=C3=A2n?=) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:32:25 +0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Home-made LiveCD licensing question Message-ID: Hello everyone, I have a question about licensing of the home-made livecd of Fedora. I create a custom livecd of Fedora 9 with my commercial application (proprietary) on it. This CD serves as a demo CD for my potential customers, and I intend to redistribute these CDs widely. Am I legal to do this? Thanks and best regards, Tinh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Aug 18 13:29:49 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom spot Callaway) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:29:49 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Home-made LiveCD licensing question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080818092949.1023d37f.tcallawa@redhat.com> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:32:25 +0700 "T?nh Tr??ng Xu?n" wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I have a question about licensing of the home-made livecd of Fedora. I > create a custom livecd of Fedora 9 with my commercial application > (proprietary) on it. This CD serves as a demo CD for my potential customers, > and I intend to redistribute these CDs widely. Am I legal to do this? You need to remove the Fedora logos and trademarks before doing so, but once that is done, you can redistribute. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway From amdunn at gmail.com Mon Aug 18 17:59:59 2008 From: amdunn at gmail.com (Alan Dunn) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:59:59 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CeCILL-C license versus CeCILL for packaging Alt-Ergo theorem prover Message-ID: I'm hoping to package the Alt-Ergo automated theorem prover (http://ergo.lri.fr) for use in Fedora. It appears that they have released this software under the CeCILL-C license, which is not one of those listed on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses The main CeCILL (v2) license is listed as approved, but the CeCILL-C is unlisted. Can someone tell me if this other license (which is also available at http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html) will pose a problem? - Alan Dunn From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Aug 18 18:37:34 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:37:34 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CeCILL-C license versus CeCILL for packaging Alt-Ergo theorem prover In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1219084654.31313.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 13:59 -0400, Alan Dunn wrote: > I'm hoping to package the Alt-Ergo automated theorem prover > (http://ergo.lri.fr) for use in Fedora. It appears that they have > released this software under the CeCILL-C license, which is not one of > those listed on > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses Hooray for license proliferation! CeCILL-C is Free, but GPL incompatible. I've added it to the table. Use: License: CeCILL-C Thanks, ~spot From sayamindu at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 13:50:59 2008 From: sayamindu at gmail.com (Sayamindu Dasgupta) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:20:59 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Packaging DansGuardian Message-ID: Hello, The upstream Dansguardian website says " Before downloading, please read the copyright for DansGuardian 2. DansGuardian is not free to download from this website for commercial use. " However, the software itself is GPL-ed (as per the LICENSE file in the source tarball). Will there be any issue if it is packaged for and distributed with Fedora ? There's an open review request at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458643 Thanks, Sayamindu -- Sayamindu Dasgupta [http://sayamindu.randomink.org/ramblings] From tibbs at math.uh.edu Thu Aug 21 14:14:58 2008 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: 21 Aug 2008 09:14:58 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] New BSD variant? Message-ID: Could someone confirm that the following license is simply a 3-clause BSD variant? Thanks, - J< License Terms and Conditions Copyright (C) 2001-2003 American Radio Relay League, Inc. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Any redistribution of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the disclaimer shown in Paragraph 5 (below). 2. Redistribution in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the disclaimer shown in Paragraph 5 (below) in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. Products derived from or including this software may not use "Logbook of the World" or "LoTW" or any other American Radio Relay League, Incorporated trademarks or servicemarks in their names without prior written permission of the ARRL. See Paragraph 6 (below) for contact information. 4. Use of this software does not imply endorsement by ARRL of products derived from or including this software and vendors may not claim such endorsement. 5. Disclaimer: This software is provided "as-is" without representation, guarantee or warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability or of fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the software is solely with you. Should the software prove defective, you (and not the American Radio Relay League, its officers, directors, employees or agents) assume the entire cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction. In no event will ARRL be liable to you or to any third party for any damages, whether direct or indirect, including lost profits, lost savings, or other incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use or inability to use such software, regardless of whether ARRL has been advised of the possibility of such damages. 6. Contact information: American Radio Relay League, Inc. Attn: Logbook of the World Manager 225 Main St Newington, CT 06111 voice: 860-594-0200 fax: 860-594-0259 email: logbook at arrl.org Worldwide Web: www.arrl.org This software consists of voluntary contributions made by many individuals on behalf of the ARRL. More information on the "Logbook of The World" project and the ARRL is available from the ARRL Web site at www.arrl.org. From michel.sylvan at gmail.com Tue Aug 26 01:27:08 2008 From: michel.sylvan at gmail.com (Michel Salim) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:27:08 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] NVIDIA license In-Reply-To: <485769C1.8040800@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> References: <48540FC1.8010906@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <1213470388.3302.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> <485769C1.8040800@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > Hello, again: > > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 06/15/2008 04:06 AM +9:00: >> On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 03:36 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: >>> Hello, all: >>> >>> Now I am trying to review rsssserver (bug 450409). >>> First I checked the license issue of this package, then I found some of the codes >>> are licensed under the below: >>> >>> /*********************************************************************NVMH1**** >>> File: >>> nv_algebra.h >>> >>> Copyright (C) 1999, 2002 NVIDIA Corporation >>> This file is provided without support, instruction, or implied warranty of any >>> kind. NVIDIA makes no guarantee of its fitness for a particular purpose and is >>> not liable under any circumstances for any damages or loss whatsoever arising >>> from the use or inability to use this file or items derived from it. >> >> This isn't really a license, there is no permission to use, copy, >> modify, or redistribute. I know you're not going to like this answer, >> but someone is going to need to contact the copyright holder (NVIDIA >> Corp) to ask them if they will grant permission to use, copy, modify, >> and redistribute this source. >> >> As-is, non-free. >> >> ~spot > > The submitter replied to me that the upstream replied to him that the > relevant codes are actually licensed under the following: > > http://developer.download.nvidia.com/licenses/general_license.txt > > I am very unsure if we can treat this as free. Would you judge this license? > IANAL, but if the only items that fall under the license are header files, then the object code / art assets provisions surely does not apply (unless the binary is considered the "Object Code version", as opposed to the "Object Code derivative") Not sure what the government-related provisions entail, though. Regards, -- Michel Salim http://hircus.jaiku.com/ From stickster at gmail.com Tue Aug 26 15:21:00 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:21:00 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [Fedora-spins] rpmfusion based spin In-Reply-To: <48B41E46.7090605@kanarip.com> References: <48B35ECC.9080002@gmail.com> <48B41E46.7090605@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <1219764060.6361.46.camel@victoria> Also CC'ing the Fedora legal list which is also concerned with issues like the trademark guidelines. Paul On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 17:16 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > CC'ing the Fedora Spins SIG mailing list as this concerns most of the > subscribers there as well. > > KH KH wrote: > > 2008/8/26 Rahul Sundaram : > >> Hi, > >> > >> I have been keep a tab on rpmfusion progress by reading the archives and it > >> seems the repository is getting reading for launch soon. Congrats on that. > >> > >> My primary interest here at the moment is creating a spin based on rpmfusion > >> and Fedora which Thorsten Leemhuis mentioned as desirable in one of his > >> earlier mails to this list. > > I don't know if Thorsten ever mention such "spin" but having both > > rpmfusion and fedora on the same media is a very hard legal issue. > > Actually that's even not possible at all without removing the name > > Fedora from such spin. (meaning removing artworks and some others > > packages i don't remember). > > FWIW, if RPMFusion wishes to provide and distribute their own version of > Fedora, including whatever packages not in Fedora, either Free or free > or not free at all, right now this is enough: > > %packages > # Remove the fedora-logos package and include something without > # Fedora trademarked material > -fedora-logos > generic-logos (or: rpmfusion-logos if you have the artwork) > # Include rpmfusion-release as well > rpmfusion-release > %end > > %post > # Substitute the Fedora name in /etc/fedora-release and /etc/issue, > # which are both owned by package fedora-release, so that it doesn't > # pop up in all kinds of weird places such as when booting the machine > # ("Welcome to .... Press I to start interactive ..." comes to mind). > # Note that _all_ trademarks are supposed to be in fedora-logos. > sed -i -e 's/Fedora/RPMFusion/g' /etc/fedora-release /etc/issue > %end > > And you're done. > > > To be more accurate: You can do such spins for yourself (either with > > free only or with nonfree packages), but you cannot redistribute the > > spin telling it is Fedora. (because it won't be fedora anymore). But > > you can (have to ?) tell this work is based (derived?) on Fedora. > > > > This (being able to say "based on Fedora") is pending the new trademark > policy at > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/NewTrademarkGuidelines > > I hope this clarifies some of the issues wrt. a RPMFusion spin. > > Kind regards, > > Jeroen van Meeuwen > -kanarip > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-spins mailing list > Fedora-spins at lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-spins -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Aug 26 15:27:58 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:27:58 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [Fedora-spins] rpmfusion based spin In-Reply-To: <1219764060.6361.46.camel@victoria> References: <48B35ECC.9080002@gmail.com> <48B41E46.7090605@kanarip.com> <1219764060.6361.46.camel@victoria> Message-ID: <1219764478.14136.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 11:21 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > Also CC'ing the Fedora legal list which is also concerned with issues > like the trademark guidelines. For what it is worth, I'm not opposed to this, but we would need to be very careful that the trademark guidelines are strictly enforced in this case, due to the nature of some of the rpmfusion bits. Obviously, this spin couldn't be hosted on Fedora servers (or US servers), nor could we point to its torrent from Fedora's tracker, or advertise it on Fedora's website. I would encourage rpmfusion to handle these matters with their own infrastructure. ~spot From stickster at gmail.com Tue Aug 26 15:42:27 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:42:27 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [Fedora-spins] rpmfusion based spin In-Reply-To: <1219764478.14136.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <48B35ECC.9080002@gmail.com> <48B41E46.7090605@kanarip.com> <1219764060.6361.46.camel@victoria> <1219764478.14136.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1219765347.6361.63.camel@victoria> On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 11:27 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 11:21 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > Also CC'ing the Fedora legal list which is also concerned with issues > > like the trademark guidelines. > > For what it is worth, I'm not opposed to this, but we would need to be > very careful that the trademark guidelines are strictly enforced in this > case, due to the nature of some of the rpmfusion bits. > > Obviously, this spin couldn't be hosted on Fedora servers (or US > servers), nor could we point to its torrent from Fedora's tracker, or > advertise it on Fedora's website. I would encourage rpmfusion to handle > these matters with their own infrastructure. Right. I don't think anyone's requesting we host this spin, just doing us the courtesy of letting us know about a derivative of Fedora that will soon exist. The secondary logomark/logotext does not exist yet, but draft guidelines allowing one are currently in review in Red Hat Legal. Until a secondary mark does exist and its use is circumscribed by some acceptable use terms, there's no text or mark approved for this purpose. In the meantime RPMFusion would be free to make some general notation on their web site ("We constructed this distribution by starting with Fedora and..."). I'm also anxious to see this secondary mark available for community use and am continuing to track its review progress. -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From abartlet at samba.org Fri Aug 29 01:56:59 2008 From: abartlet at samba.org (Andrew Bartlett) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:56:59 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] How to note 'GPLv3 with options taken'? Message-ID: <1219975019.23212.31.camel@naomi.s4.naomi.abartlet.net> The GPLv3 allows certain options to be taken, so that it becomes compatible with a number of other licences, such as BSD varients. Samba4 includes a number of pieces of such code in the form of Heimdal (a Kerberos implementation we currently have bundled), do I have to do make some special note (other than complying with the restrictions, by including copyright notices in the docs)? Thanks, Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Aug 29 11:45:15 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:45:15 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] How to note 'GPLv3 with options taken'? In-Reply-To: <1219975019.23212.31.camel@naomi.s4.naomi.abartlet.net> References: <1219975019.23212.31.camel@naomi.s4.naomi.abartlet.net> Message-ID: <1220010315.3606.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 11:56 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > The GPLv3 allows certain options to be taken, so that it becomes > compatible with a number of other licences, such as BSD varients. > > Samba4 includes a number of pieces of such code in the form of Heimdal > (a Kerberos implementation we currently have bundled), do I have to do > make some special note (other than complying with the restrictions, by > including copyright notices in the docs)? IANAL, and this should not be construed as legal advice. That disclaimer out of the way, here's my opinion. As far as the code is concerned, you should note that there are exceptions in the header attribution, something like: This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. As permitted by Section 10, the additional exception permissions have been granted: * Foo * Bar * Baz This is a result of: "If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating where to find the applicable terms." I always recommend people put the actual terms rather than a notice, because "LICENSING" and "README.LICENSE" have a terrible habit of getting lost or forgotten, then I have no idea what exceptions you meant for this code to have, and I end up trying to find you in several years time and forcing you to remember the licensing to code you forgot you wrote at all. :) >From a Fedora perspective, any package that add exceptions to the GPLv3 should be noted in its license tag with: License: GPLv3 with exceptions or License: GPLv3+ with exceptions ... depending on whether the license attribution states v3 only or v3 or later. Hope that helps, ~spot From rfontana at redhat.com Fri Aug 29 12:04:17 2008 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:04:17 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] How to note 'GPLv3 with options taken'? In-Reply-To: <1219975019.23212.31.camel@naomi.s4.naomi.abartlet.net> References: <1219975019.23212.31.camel@naomi.s4.naomi.abartlet.net> Message-ID: <20080829080417.601966ff@calliope> (IAARHL, IANASL[1], TINLA) On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:56:59 +1000 Andrew Bartlett wrote: > The GPLv3 allows certain options to be taken, so that it becomes > compatible with a number of other licences, such as BSD varients. > > Samba4 includes a number of pieces of such code in the form of Heimdal > (a Kerberos implementation we currently have bundled), do I have to do > make some special note (other than complying with the restrictions, by > including copyright notices in the docs)? No, if you are just incorporating third-party code under pre-existing GPL-compatible licenses in customary fashion, you don't have to do anything. The practice under GPLv3 is exactly the same as the practice under GPLv2. E.g., a GPLv2/v3-licensed work can contain some parts under compatible BSD-variant licenses, but no special notice beyond preservation of the BSD-like license notice is necessary. The legitimacy of compatibility [if indeed it is legitimate in any given case] is understood. Where you would need to do something extra is if you are applying GPLv3 to your own code (as opposed to third-party code under a formal non-GPL but GPL-compatible license) along with one of the tolerated additional conditions. In that case, reference to the particular category in GPLv3 section 7 authorizing the additional term would be good practice. Same goes for permissive exceptions; the FSF now has some examples of how those should be applied in GPLv3-licensed code, which involve making reference to section 7. - RF [1]Samba is a former client. From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Aug 29 12:22:14 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:22:14 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] How to note 'GPLv3 with options taken'? In-Reply-To: <1220011393.23212.85.camel@naomi.s4.naomi.abartlet.net> References: <1219975019.23212.31.camel@naomi.s4.naomi.abartlet.net> <1220010315.3606.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1220011393.23212.85.camel@naomi.s4.naomi.abartlet.net> Message-ID: <1220012534.3606.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 22:03 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > I perhaps should have been more clear. A number of the licences > impose > particular (but resaonable, so GPLv3 compatible) restrictions > requiring > their particular notice be reproduced in various places. Complying > with > them is easy - I'll be including an aggregated list of these licences > in > a text file marked as %doc. Without seeing the specifics, this seems fine. If this is the advertising clause from old BSD, that's a different story, but nothing with a University of California copyright should still have that clause. > > >From a Fedora perspective, any package that add exceptions to the > GPLv3 should be > > noted in its license tag with: > > > > License: GPLv3 with exceptions > > > > or > > > > License: GPLv3+ with exceptions > > > > ... depending on whether the license attribution states v3 only or > v3 or later. > > I'm presuming for these cases it would be GPLv3+ with permitted > restrictions? No, because in any cases where the GPL has been modified, we use "GPLv** with exceptions" to note that, for consistency. You'd be encouraged to put a comment in the spec file to elaborate, but not in the tag itself. Now that I understand this case clearly, in your scenario, the Fedora license tag would just be GPLv3+. If you wished to say: License: GPLv3+ and BSD That would also be correct and permissible. ~spot From abartlet at samba.org Fri Aug 29 12:03:13 2008 From: abartlet at samba.org (Andrew Bartlett) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:03:13 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] How to note 'GPLv3 with options taken'? In-Reply-To: <1220010315.3606.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1219975019.23212.31.camel@naomi.s4.naomi.abartlet.net> <1220010315.3606.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1220011393.23212.85.camel@naomi.s4.naomi.abartlet.net> On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 07:45 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 11:56 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > > The GPLv3 allows certain options to be taken, so that it becomes > > compatible with a number of other licences, such as BSD varients. > > > > Samba4 includes a number of pieces of such code in the form of Heimdal > > (a Kerberos implementation we currently have bundled), do I have to do > > make some special note (other than complying with the restrictions, by > > including copyright notices in the docs)? > > IANAL, and this should not be construed as legal advice. That disclaimer > out of the way, here's my opinion. > > As far as the code is concerned, you should note that there are > exceptions in the header attribution, something like: > > This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify > it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or > (at your option) any later version. As permitted by Section 10, the additional > exception permissions have been granted: I perhaps should have been more clear. A number of the licences impose particular (but resaonable, so GPLv3 compatible) restrictions requiring their particular notice be reproduced in various places. Complying with them is easy - I'll be including an aggregated list of these licences in a text file marked as %doc. > >From a Fedora perspective, any package that add exceptions to the GPLv3 should be > noted in its license tag with: > > License: GPLv3 with exceptions > > or > > License: GPLv3+ with exceptions > > ... depending on whether the license attribution states v3 only or v3 or later. I'm presuming for these cases it would be GPLv3+ with permitted restrictions? Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From rfontana at redhat.com Fri Aug 29 12:25:23 2008 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:25:23 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] How to note 'GPLv3 with options taken'? In-Reply-To: <1220010315.3606.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1219975019.23212.31.camel@naomi.s4.naomi.abartlet.net> <1220010315.3606.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20080829082523.48e67b9b@calliope> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:45:15 -0400 "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > This is a result of: > "If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you > must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the > additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating > where to find the applicable terms." Correct. In the case of the traditional third-party-license-compatibility practice, this is taken care of by inclusion of the non-GPL license notice in the relevant source file (which might be the complete license text or a reference to some license text contained in another file). > I always recommend people put the actual terms rather than a notice, > because "LICENSING" and "README.LICENSE" have a terrible habit of > getting lost or forgotten, then I have no idea what exceptions you > meant for this code to have, and I end up trying to find you in > several years time and forcing you to remember the licensing to code > you forgot you wrote at all. :) More generally, I have found from experience that global licensing notices (though important) should not be used to the exclusion of licensing notices in individual source files. (In a paper I co-authored, http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html there is a footnote suggesting that top-level notices are preferable to 'file-by-file' notices; I no longer find this convincing.) > >From a Fedora perspective, any package that add exceptions to the > >GPLv3 should be > noted in its license tag with: > > License: GPLv3 with exceptions > > or > > License: GPLv3+ with exceptions > > ... depending on whether the license attribution states v3 only or v3 > or later. Perhaps additional permissions and additional requirements should be treated differently (or maybe a special tag is needed only if there are additional requirements?). - RF