From joost at cnoc.nl Fri Feb 1 10:10:57 2008 From: joost at cnoc.nl (Joost van der Sluis) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:10:57 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License of Lazarus and fpc (freepascal) Message-ID: <1201860657.8729.22.camel@wsjoost.cnoc.local> Hi All, I'm packaging Lazarus, a program written in freepascal (fpc). (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187243) The libraries of freepascal and Lazarus come with a license they call 'modified LGPL'. In fact it's just LGPL but since freepascal can't link dynamically like for example gcc does, the 'exception' of the LGPLG to the GPL that you may link dynamical to it, become useless in the case of freepascal. So this 'Modified LGPL' has the addition to the LGPL that you may link statically. This license isn't in the official list of allowed licenses although in fact it's the LGPL with exception #3 of the FLTK license. (http://www.fltk.org/COPYING.php) Code written under the 'modified LGPL' can be freely used in LGPL projects, but it doesn't work the other way around. In practice this is never a problem, since almost all LGPL-code written for the freepascal compiler uses this 'modified LGPL' license, since the LGPL itself is rather useless in this case. So far my IANAL explanation of the issue. This is what the official license text was in the past: "The source code of the Free Pascal Runtime Libraries and packages are distributed under the Library GNU General Public License (see the file COPYING) with the following modification: - object files and libraries linked into an application may be distributed without source code." This is how the developers stated it, but soon some people came up with all sort of problems. Eventually the text became like this: (Lazarus) "These files are distributed under the Library GNU General Public License (see the file COPYING.LGPL) with the following modification: As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of the library, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version." Question is now if this 'modified LGPL' license can be added to the list of licenses allowed in Fedora. Regards, Joost van der Sluis. From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Feb 1 20:34:58 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:34:58 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License of Lazarus and fpc (freepascal) In-Reply-To: <1201860657.8729.22.camel@wsjoost.cnoc.local> References: <1201860657.8729.22.camel@wsjoost.cnoc.local> Message-ID: <1201898098.3505.6.camel@dhcp83-155.boston.redhat.com> On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 11:10 +0100, Joost van der Sluis wrote: > Eventually the text became like this: (Lazarus) > > "These files are distributed under the Library GNU General Public > License (see the file COPYING.LGPL) with the following modification: > > As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you > permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an > executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent > modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms > of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent > module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An > independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on > this library. If you modify this library, you may extend this exception > to your version of the library, but you are not obligated to do so. If > you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your > version." This is known as the GNU Classpath exception. It is ok for Fedora, although, I usually only see it with the GPL as opposed to the LGPL, since the LGPL has additional relinking requirements that aren't directly superceded by this exception. Use: # GNU Classpath style exception, see LICENSE License: LGPLv2+ with exceptions (with the correct LGPL base versioning and correct file to LICENSE text, of course). ~spot From nphilipp at redhat.com Mon Feb 4 09:31:38 2008 From: nphilipp at redhat.com (Nils Philippsen) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:31:38 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ExtJS license Message-ID: <1202117498.32486.30.camel@wombat.tiptoe.de> Hi all, I'm thinking about wrapping up ExtJS (a JavaScript framework, http://extjs.com) for TurboGears and wondered if the license conditions are okay for it to be included in Fedora. Note that there are two stable versions, v1.1 and v2.0, which are partly incompatible and there is code that won't work with the newer one. Basically it sounds to me like "LGPLv3 for the JavaScript code, other assets (graphics, style sheets) may only be shipped with these components" which seems to be what we allow for e.g. games where artwork often has a restrictive license, but anyway here are the relevant bits from LICENSE.txt in the relevant ZIP archive: --- 8< --- ExtJS v1.1.1 ------- http://extjs.com/license The CSS and Graphics ("Assets") distributed with Ext are licensed for use ONLY with their associated Ext JavaScript component ("Component"). Use of the Assets in any way that does not also include the Component is prohibited without explicit permission from Ext JS, LLC. Deriving images and CSS from the Assets in an effort to bypass this license is also prohibited. -- The JavaScript code distributed with Ext (the "Software") is licensed under the Lesser GNU (LGPL) open source license version 3.0. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html If you are using this library for commercial purposes, we encourage you to purchase a commercial license. Please visit http://extjs.com/license for more details. This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU Lesser General Public License for more details. --- >8 ----------------------- --- 8< --- ExtJS v2.0.1 ------ http://extjs.com/license License of CSS and Graphics ("Assets") ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Assets distributed with Ext are licensed for use ONLY with their associated Ext JavaScript component ("Component"). Use of the Assets in any way that does not also include the Component is prohibited without explicit permission from Ext JS, LLC. Deriving images and CSS from the Assets in an effort to bypass this license is also prohibited. Open Source License ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ext is also licensed under the terms of the Open Source LGPL 3.0 license. You may use our open source license if you: * Want to use Ext in an open source project that precludes using non-open source software * Plan to use Ext in a personal, educational or non-profit manner * Are using Ext in a commercial application that is not a software development library or toolkit, you will meet LGPL requirements and you do not wish to support the project http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html [...] -- This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU Lesser General Public License for more details. --- >8 --------------------- Thanks, Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp at redhat.com "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 From dchen at redhat.com Tue Feb 5 06:35:13 2008 From: dchen at redhat.com (Ding-Yi Chen) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:35:13 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] man-pages-ko licence Message-ID: <47A803A1.3080502@redhat.com> Hi, I am packing the man-pages-ko, the Korean manpages. The package (man-pages-ko) itself contain nothing more than collection of translated manpages. Nevertheless, it does have a Korean copyright announcement (http://man.kldp.org/wiki/ManPageCopyright) . The Google translates it to: Translation copyright page manual # English translations of all the registered in the project Manpage page manual to the rights of the copyright to the original (English), as follows. Put additional restrictions on the Korean Manpage project. However, such a translation, which occurred on the secondary rights such as coherent. 1. Translation copyright page manual translated translators identified with the principles of translators. 2. Unspecified translators translate the manual page, the copyright of the English translation of the page Manpage project. 3. Distributed as a package in the form of projects Manpage English, the archive, the archive's Manpage copyright of the Korean project. 4. Even if the cases listed above, the modified document / Do not put restrictions on the redistribution. However, modifying / redistribution if the source of the page manual explicitly that the project since the Korean Manpage raised by the feedback to be sent to the Korean Manpage project. ====================================================================================== To me, it looks a bit like IEEE, but it lacks of POSIX copyright, and it adds extra requirement such as notify the Korean Manpage project. Should we still consider it IEEE? Regards. Ding-Yi Chen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dchen.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 296 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Feb 5 13:52:43 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:52:43 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] man-pages-ko licence In-Reply-To: <47A803A1.3080502@redhat.com> References: <47A803A1.3080502@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1202219563.3188.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 16:35 +1000, Ding-Yi Chen wrote: > Hi, > > I am packing the man-pages-ko, the Korean manpages. > The package (man-pages-ko) itself contain nothing more than collection > of translated manpages. > Nevertheless, it does have a Korean copyright announcement > (http://man.kldp.org/wiki/ManPageCopyright) . > The Google translates it to: There is no way I could even begin to make a reasonable call based on a google mangled translation. Can you get one of our translation team to translate this cleanly? ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat Feb 9 22:32:13 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:02:13 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora Legal issues wiki page is outdated Message-ID: <47AE29ED.1000604@fedoraproject.org> Hi http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraLegalIssues We need to clean up and maintain it or just delete it and track issues elsewhere in a issue tracker. Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Sat Feb 9 22:27:38 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:27:38 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora Legal issues wiki page is outdated In-Reply-To: <47AE29ED.1000604@fedoraproject.org> References: <47AE29ED.1000604@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1202596058.3314.10.camel@host-133-254.expo.socallinuxexpo.org> On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 04:02 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraLegalIssues > > We need to clean up and maintain it or just delete it and track issues > elsewhere in a issue tracker. I'm willing/able to do either. ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat Feb 9 22:44:17 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:14:17 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Consolidating licensing information Message-ID: <47AE2CC1.5070307@fedoraproject.org> Hi All the licensing information is somewhat spread out in packaging guidelines needs to be consolidated to the licensing page in the wiki IMO. There are other repositories and distributions referring to the packaging guidelines or licensing guidelines and it would be useful for us to have a single reference. Also as discussed earlier, the following exception must be dropped from the exceptions section in the packaging guidelines as this is legacy information not applicable anymore. "Some fonts are released as upstream as TTF only. These fonts are treated as content. When source code is available (like ?DejaVu), then the font must be built from source. " It would probably be useful to put out a announcement of this change in fedora-devel-announce list that fonts must be free and open source too. Rahul From nphilipp at redhat.com Mon Feb 11 10:21:11 2008 From: nphilipp at redhat.com (Nils Philippsen) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:21:11 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ExtJS license In-Reply-To: <1202117498.32486.30.camel@wombat.tiptoe.de> References: <1202117498.32486.30.camel@wombat.tiptoe.de> Message-ID: <1202725271.31736.29.camel@gibraltar.str.redhat.com> Ping -- does anyone have an opinion on the following issue? On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 10:31 +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm thinking about wrapping up ExtJS (a JavaScript framework, > http://extjs.com) for TurboGears and wondered if the license conditions > are okay for it to be included in Fedora. Note that there are two stable > versions, v1.1 and v2.0, which are partly incompatible and there is code > that won't work with the newer one. > > Basically it sounds to me like "LGPLv3 for the JavaScript code, other > assets (graphics, style sheets) may only be shipped with these > components" which seems to be what we allow for e.g. games where artwork > often has a restrictive license, but anyway here are the relevant bits > from LICENSE.txt in the relevant ZIP archive: > > --- 8< --- ExtJS v1.1.1 ------- > http://extjs.com/license > > The CSS and Graphics ("Assets") distributed with Ext are licensed for > use ONLY with their associated Ext JavaScript component ("Component"). > Use of the Assets in any way that does not also include the Component is > prohibited without explicit permission from Ext JS, LLC. Deriving > images and CSS from the Assets in an effort to bypass this license is > also prohibited. > > -- > > The JavaScript code distributed with Ext (the "Software") is licensed > under the Lesser GNU (LGPL) open source license version 3.0. > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html > > If you are using this library for commercial purposes, we encourage you > to purchase a commercial license. Please visit http://extjs.com/license > for more details. > > This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU > Lesser General Public License for more details. > --- >8 ----------------------- > > --- 8< --- ExtJS v2.0.1 ------ > http://extjs.com/license > > > License of CSS and Graphics ("Assets") > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The Assets distributed with Ext are licensed for use ONLY with their > associated Ext JavaScript component ("Component"). Use of the Assets in > any way that does not also include the Component is prohibited without > explicit permission from Ext JS, LLC. Deriving images and CSS from the > Assets in an effort to bypass this license is also prohibited. > > > Open Source License > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Ext is also licensed under the terms of the Open Source LGPL 3.0 > license. You may use our open source license if you: > * Want to use Ext in an open source project that precludes using > non-open source software > * Plan to use Ext in a personal, educational or non-profit manner > * Are using Ext in a commercial application that is not a software > development library or toolkit, you will meet LGPL requirements and you > do not wish to support the project > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html > [...] > -- > > This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU > Lesser General Public License for more details. > --- >8 --------------------- Thanks, Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp at redhat.com "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Feb 11 15:25:26 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:55:26 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ExtJS license In-Reply-To: <1202117498.32486.30.camel@wombat.tiptoe.de> References: <1202117498.32486.30.camel@wombat.tiptoe.de> Message-ID: <47B068E6.3090901@fedoraproject.org> Nils Philippsen wrote: > > --- 8< --- ExtJS v2.0.1 ------ > http://extjs.com/license > > > License of CSS and Graphics ("Assets") > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The Assets distributed with Ext are licensed for use ONLY with their > associated Ext JavaScript component ("Component"). Use of the Assets in > any way that does not also include the Component is prohibited without > explicit permission from Ext JS, LLC. Deriving images and CSS from the > Assets in an effort to bypass this license is also prohibited. > IMO, this is completely unacceptable unless we have a free "assets" set that can replace this. Rahul From nphilipp at redhat.com Mon Feb 11 16:07:42 2008 From: nphilipp at redhat.com (Nils Philippsen) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:07:42 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ExtJS license In-Reply-To: <47B068E6.3090901@fedoraproject.org> References: <1202117498.32486.30.camel@wombat.tiptoe.de> <47B068E6.3090901@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1202746062.8135.6.camel@gibraltar.str.redhat.com> On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 20:55 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Nils Philippsen wrote: > > > > > --- 8< --- ExtJS v2.0.1 ------ > > http://extjs.com/license > > > > > > License of CSS and Graphics ("Assets") > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The Assets distributed with Ext are licensed for use ONLY with their > > associated Ext JavaScript component ("Component"). Use of the Assets in > > any way that does not also include the Component is prohibited without > > explicit permission from Ext JS, LLC. Deriving images and CSS from the > > Assets in an effort to bypass this license is also prohibited. > > > > IMO, this is completely unacceptable unless we have a free "assets" set > that can replace this. Hmm, I wonder why shipping uqm-content is acceptable then, see /usr/share/doc/uqm-0.6.2: --- 8< --- The content -- voiceovers, dialogue, graphics, and music -- are copyright (C) 1992, 1993, 2002 Toys for Bob, Inc. or their respective creators. The content may be used freely under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 license (included below, and also available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/). The content may also be copied freely as part of a distribution of The Ur-Quan Masters. --- >8 --- I agree that CC-BY-NC-SA is slightly less restrictive than the extjs assets license above, but where do we (in our licensing guidelines) make that distinction? Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp at redhat.com "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Feb 11 16:16:38 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:46:38 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ExtJS license In-Reply-To: <1202746062.8135.6.camel@gibraltar.str.redhat.com> References: <1202117498.32486.30.camel@wombat.tiptoe.de> <47B068E6.3090901@fedoraproject.org> <1202746062.8135.6.camel@gibraltar.str.redhat.com> Message-ID: <47B074E6.7010702@fedoraproject.org> Nils Philippsen wrote: > Hmm, I wonder why shipping uqm-content is acceptable then, > see /usr/share/doc/uqm-0.6.2: > > --- 8< --- > The content -- voiceovers, dialogue, graphics, and music -- are > copyright (C) 1992, 1993, 2002 Toys for Bob, Inc. or their > respective creators. The content may be used freely under the > terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike > 2.5 license (included below, and also available at > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/). The content > may also be copied freely as part of a distribution of The Ur-Quan > Masters. > --- >8 --- > > I agree that CC-BY-NC-SA is slightly less restrictive than the extjs > assets license above, but where do we (in our licensing guidelines) make > that distinction? You should file a bug report. This isn't allowed either. Rahul From michel.sylvan at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 20:39:31 2008 From: michel.sylvan at gmail.com (Michel Salim) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:39:31 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Falcon Programming Language license In-Reply-To: <1200739655.4387.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4791D2AA.5070006@falconpl.org> <1200739655.4387.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Jan 19, 2008 5:47 AM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 11:36 +0100, Giancarlo Niccolai wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Hello, > > I have submitted the Falcon package for review and inclusion at > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428603 > > > > I will clear the rpmlint report later today. > > > > The Falcon Programming Language is released under FPLL: this is mainly > > an Apache2 license modified to extend the openness of the license to > > the embedding application and to the scripts. Here I am submitting the > > license to fedora-legal for approval. > > I've passed this on to the FSF's lawyers for review. > Spot, Any news on that review? It seems to me that if the only divergence from ASL 2.0 is the *granting* of additional rights, then the only worry should be that of a Falcon-licensed application linking to an incompatibly-licensed library (which the Falcon interpreter does not). Thanks, -- Michel Salim http://hircus.jaiku.com/ From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Feb 18 09:44:36 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:14:36 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Free software licenses and documentation Message-ID: <47B95384.2010401@fedoraproject.org> Hi http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing does not mention GPL etc as permissable for documentation though I pretty sure we do ship GPL'ed documentation. Perhaps a generic note should be added that what is permissible for code is permissible for content (though may or may not be suitable). Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Feb 18 09:46:06 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:16:06 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Free software licenses and documentation Message-ID: <47B953DE.5030802@fedoraproject.org> Hi http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing does not mention GPL etc as permissible for documentation though I pretty sure we do ship GPL'ed documentation. Perhaps a generic note should be added that what is permissible for code is permissible for content (though may or may not be suitable). Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Feb 18 17:14:36 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:14:36 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Free software licenses and documentation In-Reply-To: <47B953DE.5030802@fedoraproject.org> References: <47B953DE.5030802@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1203354876.5109.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 15:16 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing does not mention GPL etc as > permissible for documentation though I pretty sure we do ship GPL'ed > documentation. Perhaps a generic note should be added that what is > permissible for code is permissible for content (though may or may not > be suitable). It's not generally true. The GPL, while used for some documentation, is a terrible choice. Other licenses are worse, because they explicitly make references to code. I've purposely not listed the GPL here, because neither Fedora nor the FSF wants to encourage its usage as a documentation license. ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Feb 18 17:55:56 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:25:56 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Free software licenses and documentation In-Reply-To: <1203354876.5109.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <47B953DE.5030802@fedoraproject.org> <1203354876.5109.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <47B9C6AC.7050804@fedoraproject.org> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 15:16 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> Hi >> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing does not mention GPL etc as >> permissible for documentation though I pretty sure we do ship GPL'ed >> documentation. Perhaps a generic note should be added that what is >> permissible for code is permissible for content (though may or may not >> be suitable). > > It's not generally true. The GPL, while used for some documentation, is > a terrible choice. Other licenses are worse, because they explicitly > make references to code. I've purposely not listed the GPL here, because > neither Fedora nor the FSF wants to encourage its usage as a > documentation license. Right. So why not list GPL specifically as permissible but not recommended? A related blog post http://www.dhanapalan.com/blog/2008/02/16/a-licence-odyssey/ Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Feb 18 18:46:19 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:46:19 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Free software licenses and documentation In-Reply-To: <47B9C6AC.7050804@fedoraproject.org> References: <47B953DE.5030802@fedoraproject.org> <1203354876.5109.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47B9C6AC.7050804@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1203360379.3736.3.camel@new-host-5> On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 23:25 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 15:16 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing does not mention GPL etc as > >> permissible for documentation though I pretty sure we do ship GPL'ed > >> documentation. Perhaps a generic note should be added that what is > >> permissible for code is permissible for content (though may or may not > >> be suitable). > > > > It's not generally true. The GPL, while used for some documentation, is > > a terrible choice. Other licenses are worse, because they explicitly > > make references to code. I've purposely not listed the GPL here, because > > neither Fedora nor the FSF wants to encourage its usage as a > > documentation license. > > Right. So why not list GPL specifically as permissible but not recommended? Fair enough. Done. ~spot From petersen at redhat.com Wed Feb 20 02:00:32 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:00:32 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] xmlroff BSD with usage restriction Message-ID: <47BB89C0.2020305@redhat.com> xmlroff (http://xmlroff.org/) is under a BSD license http://xmlroff.org/browser/trunk/xmlroff/COPYING which has an additional sentence: "You acknowledge that this Software is not designed, licensed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility." Does this means it can't be included in Fedora? Jens From jwboyer at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 02:17:37 2008 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:17:37 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] xmlroff BSD with usage restriction In-Reply-To: <47BB89C0.2020305@redhat.com> References: <47BB89C0.2020305@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20080219201737.6ad1d2ea@zod.rchland.ibm.com> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:00:32 +1000 Jens Petersen wrote: > xmlroff (http://xmlroff.org/) is under a BSD license > http://xmlroff.org/browser/trunk/xmlroff/COPYING > which has an additional sentence: > > "You acknowledge that this Software is not designed, licensed or > intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance > of any nuclear facility." > > Does this means it can't be included in Fedora? I don't see a problem with that myself. It's not a restriction. It's basically an additional "there is no warranty" disclaimer. josh From tmz at pobox.com Wed Feb 20 02:51:55 2008 From: tmz at pobox.com (Todd Zullinger) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:51:55 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] xmlroff BSD with usage restriction In-Reply-To: <20080219201737.6ad1d2ea@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <47BB89C0.2020305@redhat.com> <20080219201737.6ad1d2ea@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20080220025155.GK3875@inocybe.teonanacatl.org> Josh Boyer wrote: >> "You acknowledge that this Software is not designed, licensed or >> intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance >> of any nuclear facility." >> >> Does this means it can't be included in Fedora? > > I don't see a problem with that myself. It's not a restriction. It's > basically an additional "there is no warranty" disclaimer. I think the sticking point is the "not ... licensed" part. -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I have a very firm gun control policy. If there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it. -- Clint Eastwood Pink Cadillac -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 542 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwboyer at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 02:54:34 2008 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:54:34 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] xmlroff BSD with usage restriction In-Reply-To: <20080220025155.GK3875@inocybe.teonanacatl.org> References: <47BB89C0.2020305@redhat.com> <20080219201737.6ad1d2ea@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20080220025155.GK3875@inocybe.teonanacatl.org> Message-ID: <20080219205434.075594af@zod.rchland.ibm.com> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:51:55 -0500 Todd Zullinger wrote: > Josh Boyer wrote: > >> "You acknowledge that this Software is not designed, licensed or > >> intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance > >> of any nuclear facility." > >> > >> Does this means it can't be included in Fedora? > > > > I don't see a problem with that myself. It's not a restriction. It's > > basically an additional "there is no warranty" disclaimer. > > I think the sticking point is the "not ... licensed" part. OOPS. Yeah, missed that totally. josh From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Feb 20 04:04:57 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:04:57 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] xmlroff BSD with usage restriction In-Reply-To: <47BB89C0.2020305@redhat.com> References: <47BB89C0.2020305@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1203480297.12112.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 12:00 +1000, Jens Petersen wrote: > xmlroff (http://xmlroff.org/) is under a BSD license > http://xmlroff.org/browser/trunk/xmlroff/COPYING > which has an additional sentence: > > "You acknowledge that this Software is not designed, licensed or > intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance > of any nuclear facility." > > Does this means it can't be included in Fedora? Yes. That license is a show stopper, because of the wording "not ... licensed ... for use". Is Sun the copyright holder on that license? The last time we saw that license, Sun was the author, and they seemed willing to fix the wording. ~spot From petersen at redhat.com Wed Feb 20 04:48:26 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:48:26 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] xmlroff BSD with usage restriction In-Reply-To: <1203480297.12112.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <47BB89C0.2020305@redhat.com> <1203480297.12112.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <47BBB11A.9080901@redhat.com> > Yes. That license is a show stopper, because of the wording "not ... > licensed ... for use". Is Sun the copyright holder on that license? The > last time we saw that license, Sun was the author, and they seemed > willing to fix the wording. Ok, I'll try to contact upstream and see what they say. Jens From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Feb 27 11:35:03 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:05:03 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ExtJS license In-Reply-To: <1202117498.32486.30.camel@wombat.tiptoe.de> References: <1202117498.32486.30.camel@wombat.tiptoe.de> Message-ID: <47C54AE7.1020305@fedoraproject.org> Nils Philippsen wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm thinking about wrapping up ExtJS (a JavaScript framework, > http://extjs.com) for TurboGears and wondered if the license conditions > are okay for it to be included in Fedora. Note that there are two stable > versions, v1.1 and v2.0, which are partly incompatible and there is code > that won't work with the newer one. Looks like this is even murkier. http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9878693-16.html Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Feb 27 22:21:26 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:51:26 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Consolidating licensing information In-Reply-To: <47AE2CC1.5070307@fedoraproject.org> References: <47AE2CC1.5070307@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <47C5E266.1040009@fedoraproject.org> Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > > All the licensing information is somewhat spread out in packaging > guidelines needs to be consolidated to the licensing page in the wiki > IMO. There are other repositories and distributions referring to the > packaging guidelines or licensing guidelines and it would be useful for > us to have a single reference. Also as discussed earlier, the following > exception must be dropped from the exceptions section in the packaging > guidelines as this is legacy information not applicable anymore. > > "Some fonts are released as upstream as TTF only. These fonts are > treated as content. When source code is available (like ?DejaVu), then > the font must be built from source. " > > It would probably be useful to put out a announcement of this change in > fedora-devel-announce list that fonts must be free and open source too. > Ping... Rahul From dchen at redhat.com Thu Feb 28 00:41:33 2008 From: dchen at redhat.com (Ding-Yi Chen) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:41:33 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] man-pages-ko licence In-Reply-To: <1202219563.3188.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <47A803A1.3080502@redhat.com> <1202219563.3188.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <47C6033D.9040201@redhat.com> Hi, Our Korean translators have translate the copyright as (Thanks, Eun ju): ===================================================================== Copyright of Man Page Copyright of Translated Man Page The copyrights of all translated manpages in the Korean Manpage Project are inherited from copyright of the original English. There are no additional restrictions on the Korean Manpage Project. However, the secondary right which could be incurred on the translation is as follows: 1. Copyright of translated man page specified by translator is owned by the translator. 2. Copyright of translated man page unspecified by translator is owned by the Korean Manpage Project. 3. For archives distributed as packages in the Korean Manpage Project, copyright of the archive is owned by the Korean Manpage Project. 4. Even if the cases listed above, there are no restrictions on the modification or redistribution of document. If the document is modified or redistributed it must specify the source of appropriate manpage is from Koren Manpage Project so that the feedback has to be sent to the Korean Manpage Project. Exception It is possible the documents on this site may contain false information due to a technical error or mistranslation. However, Korean Manpage Project does not guarantee anything even in this case. If there is false information, please let administrator know or report the error to the appropriate place on the homepage. The documents of this site are subject to change, delete, or move without notice due to error correction of the documents. ==================================================================== Regards, Ding-Yi Chen Tom "spot" Callaway ??: > On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 16:35 +1000, Ding-Yi Chen wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am packing the man-pages-ko, the Korean manpages. >> The package (man-pages-ko) itself contain nothing more than collection >> of translated manpages. >> Nevertheless, it does have a Korean copyright announcement >> (http://man.kldp.org/wiki/ManPageCopyright) . >> The Google translates it to: >> > > There is no way I could even begin to make a reasonable call based on a > google mangled translation. Can you get one of our translation team to > translate this cleanly? > > ~spot > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dchen.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 296 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Feb 28 03:20:35 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:20:35 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] man-pages-ko licence In-Reply-To: <47C6033D.9040201@redhat.com> References: <47A803A1.3080502@redhat.com> <1202219563.3188.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47C6033D.9040201@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1204168835.3299.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 10:41 +1000, Ding-Yi Chen wrote: > Hi, > > Our Korean translators have translate the copyright as (Thanks, Eun ju): That's fine. Use "Copyright only" in the License field. ~spot