From green at redhat.com Sun Jul 6 13:55:45 2008 From: green at redhat.com (Anthony Green) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 06:55:45 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Seeking approval for use of LLGPL license Message-ID: <4870CEE1.40108@redhat.com> Many Free Software libraries and programs written in Lisp are licensed under the terms of the "Lisp Library General Public License", or LLGPL. It is essentially the LLGPL with a preamble that modifies it to make it more compatible with Lisp technology. See http://www.cliki.net/LLGPL and http://opensource.franz.com/preamble.html . I've included the text of the preamble below. I am seeking approval to use the LLGPL for Fedora packages. I already have one package that is approved, pending resolution of this question: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427411 Thank you, Anthony Green *Preamble to the Gnu Lesser General Public License * Copyright (c) 2000 Franz Incorporated, Berkeley, CA 94704 The concept of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 ("LGPL ") has been adopted to govern the use and distribution of above-mentioned application. However, the LGPL uses terminology that is more appropriate for a program written in C than one written in Lisp. Nevertheless, the LGPL can still be applied to a Lisp program if certain clarifications are made. This document details those clarifications. Accordingly, the license for the open-source Lisp applications consists of this document plus the LGPL . Wherever there is a conflict between this document and the LGPL , this document takes precedence over the LGPL . A "Library" in Lisp is a collection of Lisp functions, data and foreign modules. The form of the Library can be Lisp source code (for processing by an interpreter) or object code (usually the result of compilation of source code or built with some other mechanisms). Foreign modules are object code in a form that can be linked into a Lisp executable. When we speak of functions we do so in the most general way to include, in addition, methods and unnamed functions. Lisp "data" is also a general term that includes the data structures resulting from defining Lisp classes. A Lisp application may include the same set of Lisp objects as does a Library, but this does not mean that the application is necessarily a "work based on the Library" it contains. The Library consists of everything in the distribution file set before any modifications are made to the files. If any of the functions or classes in the Library are redefined in other files, then those redefinitions ARE considered a work based on the Library. If additional methods are added to generic functions in the Library, those additional methods are NOT considered a work based on the Library. If Library classes are subclassed, these subclasses are NOT considered a work based on the Library. If the Library is modified to explicitly call other functions that are neither part of Lisp itself nor an available add-on module to Lisp, then the functions called by the modified Library ARE considered a work based on the Library. The goal is to ensure that the Library will compile and run without getting undefined function errors. It is permitted to add proprietary source code to the Library, but it must be done in a way such that the Library will still run without that proprietary code present. Section 5 of the LGPL distinguishes between the case of a library being dynamically linked at runtime and one being statically linked at build time. Section 5 of the LGPL states that the former results in an executable that is a "work that uses the Library." Section 5 of the LGPL states that the latter results in one that is a "derivative of the Library", which is therefore covered by the LGPL . Since Lisp only offers one choice, which is to link the Library into an executable at build time, we declare that, for the purpose applying the LGPL to the Library, an executable that results from linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library is considered a "work that uses the Library" and is therefore NOT covered by the LGPL . Because of this declaration, section 6 of LGPL is not applicable to the Library. However, in connection with each distribution of this executable, you must also deliver, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the LGPL , the source code of Library (or your derivative thereof) that is incorporated into this executable. From rrakus at redhat.com Mon Jul 7 13:42:49 2008 From: rrakus at redhat.com (Roman Rakus) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:42:49 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Is license of cleanfeed right? Message-ID: <48721D59.9020008@redhat.com> LICENSE This software may be distributed freely, provided it is intact (including all the files from the original archive). You may modify it, and you may distribute your modified version, provided the original work is credited to the appropriate authors, and your work is credited to you (don't make changes and pass them off as my work), and that you aren't charging for it. Is it ok? "That last sentence may or may not cause this to become non-free :(" -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rrakus.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 226 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Jul 7 14:28:29 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:28:29 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Is license of cleanfeed right? In-Reply-To: <48721D59.9020008@redhat.com> References: <48721D59.9020008@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1215440909.4220.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 15:42 +0200, Roman Rakus wrote: > LICENSE > This software may be distributed freely, provided it is intact > (including all the files from the original archive). You may > modify it, and you may distribute your modified version, > provided the original work is credited to the appropriate > authors, and your work is credited to you (don't make changes > and pass them off as my work), and that you aren't charging for > it. > > Is it ok? > "That last sentence may or may not cause this to become non-free :(" Indeed, that last sentence makes the license non-free. Before we pull it from Fedora, you should try to contact the upstream maintainer and see if he'll drop that final clause. Preventing someone from selling free software is rather pointless and silly, because people will always be able to get it at no cost from someone. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Jul 7 15:32:07 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:32:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Seeking approval for use of LLGPL license In-Reply-To: <4870CEE1.40108@redhat.com> References: <4870CEE1.40108@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1215444727.4220.65.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2008-07-06 at 06:55 -0700, Anthony Green wrote: > Lisp Library General Public License This is fine, added to the License list. Use: License: LLGPL Thanks, ~spot P.S. If you block a bug against "FE-Legal", I will see it. :) From rrakus at redhat.com Mon Jul 7 15:56:48 2008 From: rrakus at redhat.com (Roman Rakus) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:56:48 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Is license of cleanfeed right? In-Reply-To: <1215440909.4220.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <48721D59.9020008@redhat.com> <1215440909.4220.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <48723CC0.1050804@redhat.com> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 15:42 +0200, Roman Rakus wrote: > >> LICENSE >> This software may be distributed freely, provided it is intact >> (including all the files from the original archive). You may >> modify it, and you may distribute your modified version, >> provided the original work is credited to the appropriate >> authors, and your work is credited to you (don't make changes >> and pass them off as my work), and that you aren't charging for >> it. >> >> Is it ok? >> "That last sentence may or may not cause this to become non-free :(" >> > > Indeed, that last sentence makes the license non-free. Before we pull it > from Fedora, you should try to contact the upstream maintainer and see > if he'll drop that final clause. > > Preventing someone from selling free software is rather pointless and > silly, because people will always be able to get it at no cost from > someone. > > ~spot > > Upstream maintainer changed and with him also license. Now it is "Artistic license". I'm not sure, if is free or not, but I think that is free. Reading in attach... -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: LICENSE URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rrakus.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 226 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Jul 7 16:35:58 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:35:58 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Is license of cleanfeed right? In-Reply-To: <48723CC0.1050804@redhat.com> References: <48721D59.9020008@redhat.com> <1215440909.4220.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <48723CC0.1050804@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1215448558.4220.76.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 17:56 +0200, Roman Rakus wrote: > Upstream maintainer changed and with him also license. Now it is > "Artistic license". I'm not sure, if is free or not, but I think that > is free. Reading in attach... Actually, it isn't, this is Artistic 1.0 (non-free). See if he will use Artistic 2.0 instead (it is free). http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0 ~spot From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 17:53:37 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:53:37 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Ekushey Bengali fonts Message-ID: <1215798817.8058.66.camel@victoria> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/648 I'm not sure who (if anyone) has been alerted about this request for us to host some Bengali fonts which apparently have some uncertain origins, despite their licensing. (See ticket URL above for details.) This situation's probably not critical, because there's nothing being hosted by Fedora yet AFAICT, but it would be nice to respond to the requestor(s) in the ticket. -- 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 sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Jul 11 18:01:30 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:31:30 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Ekushey Bengali fonts In-Reply-To: <1215798817.8058.66.camel@victoria> References: <1215798817.8058.66.camel@victoria> Message-ID: <48779FFA.7030602@fedoraproject.org> Paul W. Frields wrote: > https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/648 > > I'm not sure who (if anyone) has been alerted about this request for us > to host some Bengali fonts which apparently have some uncertain origins, > despite their licensing. (See ticket URL above for details.) This > situation's probably not critical, because there's nothing being hosted > by Fedora yet AFAICT, but it would be nice to respond to the > requestor(s) in the ticket. CC'ing a couple of folks who can check this out. Rahul From Matt_Domsch at Dell.com Tue Jul 15 03:27:05 2008 From: Matt_Domsch at Dell.com (Matt_Domsch at Dell.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:27:05 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] LGPLv2 and v2.1 for fonts? Message-ID: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454128 requests review of a set of 4 fonts. 3 are licensed LGPLv2, one LGPLv2.1. These are not listed at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts therefore I request clarification. Thanks, Matt -- Matt Domsch Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux From dvd at pcmagazine.it Thu Jul 3 10:05:51 2008 From: dvd at pcmagazine.it (PC Magazine - DVD Staff) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:05:51 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora Live! on PC Magazine DVD Message-ID: <486CA47F.3070609@pcmagazine.it> Hello, we would like to include FEDORA Live (CD Iso) on PC Magazine Italia cover mount DVD-ROM (paid circulation of 45,000 copies). Is it possible? We need an explicit written permission (with a simple e-mail) from you in order to distribute your software in our country. Your software will be downloaded from your web site and published as is in our DVD-ROM without any modification. We'll include in the DVD Html interface your web site address and all the files of the original distribution. Please note that our DVD-ROM is a gift for our readers, it include many other freeware, shareware and open source software and it is not sold neither distributed without the magazine. Best regards. ==================== PC Magazine Italia DVD staff www.pcmagazine.it dvd at pcmagazine.it ACACIA Edizioni Srl Via Copernico, 3 20082 Binasco (MI) ITALY - EU www.acaciaedizioni.com ==================== LEGAL NOTICE This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. You may not disclose to any third party any portion of the message (whether paraphrased or not) or any information contained in the message without explicit written permission from the author of the message. Furthermore, unless you are the intended addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use or reproduce any portion of the message. From sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 04:57:58 2008 From: sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?IlNhbmthcnNoYW4gKOCmuOCmmeCnjeCmleCmsOCnjeCmt+Cmoyki?=) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:27:58 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Ekushey Bengali fonts In-Reply-To: <48779FFA.7030602@fedoraproject.org> References: <1215798817.8058.66.camel@victoria> <48779FFA.7030602@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <487C2E56.5090902@gmail.com> Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: >> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/648 >> I'm not sure who (if anyone) has been alerted about this request for us >> to host some Bengali fonts which apparently have some uncertain origins, >> despite their licensing. (See ticket URL above for details.) This >> situation's probably not critical, because there's nothing being hosted >> by Fedora yet AFAICT, but it would be nice to respond to the >> requestor(s) in the ticket. > > CC'ing a couple of folks who can check this out. The fonts in question have had unclear origins particularly related to the glyphs. This issue has been out there for a while without a very clear statement from the developers. Sayamindu (cc: ed) has some more knowledge about the lack of clarity of these set of fonts. On a personal note, I would not like to see them hosted at Fedora Infrastructure or included as part of anything related to bn_IN (which is maintained by Runa) till there is clarity on the issue. ~sankarshan -- You see things; and you say 'Why?'; But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?' - George Bernard Shaw www.linkedin.com/in/sankarshan From sayamindu at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 05:11:28 2008 From: sayamindu at gmail.com (Sayamindu Dasgupta) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:41:28 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Ekushey Bengali fonts In-Reply-To: <487C2E56.5090902@gmail.com> References: <1215798817.8058.66.camel@victoria> <48779FFA.7030602@fedoraproject.org> <487C2E56.5090902@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:27 AM, "Sankarshan (????????)" wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> >> Paul W. Frields wrote: >>> >>> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/648 >>> I'm not sure who (if anyone) has been alerted about this request for us >>> to host some Bengali fonts which apparently have some uncertain origins, >>> despite their licensing. (See ticket URL above for details.) This >>> situation's probably not critical, because there's nothing being hosted >>> by Fedora yet AFAICT, but it would be nice to respond to the >>> requestor(s) in the ticket. >> >> CC'ing a couple of folks who can check this out. > > The fonts in question have had unclear origins particularly related to the > glyphs. This issue has been out there for a while without a very clear > statement from the developers. > > Sayamindu (cc: ed) has some more knowledge about the lack of clarity of > these set of fonts. > > On a personal note, I would not like to see them hosted at Fedora > Infrastructure or included as part of anything related to bn_IN (which is > maintained by Runa) till there is clarity on the issue. > > ~sankarshan Hello, I put up some information in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ekushey_fonts I also had the experience of working with some of the people involved with the project, and I would highly discourage anyone from distributing those fonts. One of the people behind the project had donated some glyphs for conversion into a Free/Open Source OpenType font, claiming that those were his own design. Some months later, we found that they were lifted from the font used by a pretty popular Bengali specific word processor from Bangladesh. When we pointed this out to the "donor" he kept on claiming that the work was his own (even after we had demonstrated that the glyphs match exactly if superimposed). Thanks, Sayamindu -- Sayamindu Dasgupta One Laptop Per Child Project http://laptop.org From runabh at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 06:37:32 2008 From: runabh at gmail.com (Runa Bhattacharjee) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:07:32 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Ekushey Bengali fonts In-Reply-To: <487C2E56.5090902@gmail.com> References: <1215798817.8058.66.camel@victoria> <48779FFA.7030602@fedoraproject.org> <487C2E56.5090902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <487C45AC.20509@gmail.com> Hi, Sankarshan (????????) wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> Paul W. Frields wrote: >>> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/648 >>> I'm not sure who (if anyone) has been alerted about this request for us >>> to host some Bengali fonts which apparently have some uncertain >>> origins, >>> despite their licensing. (See ticket URL above for details.) This >>> situation's probably not critical, because there's nothing being hosted >>> by Fedora yet AFAICT, but it would be nice to respond to the >>> requestor(s) in the ticket. >> >> CC'ing a couple of folks who can check this out. > [snip] > > On a personal note, I would not like to see them hosted at Fedora > Infrastructure or included as part of anything related to bn_IN (which > is maintained by Runa) till there is clarity on the issue. I'd echo the same. As stated by Sayamindu in another mail in this same thread, the people involved have a history of plagiarism (ever since the time when bn was a single locale) and I would seriously discourage these fonts to be associated with bn_IN. The conversations in Bengali, linked in the fedorahosted ticket translate into a tirade of allegations against the "donor" of the fonts. hth regards Runa -- blog: http://runab.livejournal.com irc: mishti or runa_b on Freenode From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Jul 15 13:49:28 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:19:28 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora Live! on PC Magazine DVD In-Reply-To: <486CA47F.3070609@pcmagazine.it> References: <486CA47F.3070609@pcmagazine.it> Message-ID: <487CAAE8.7030806@fedoraproject.org> PC Magazine - DVD Staff wrote: > > Hello, > > we would like to include FEDORA Live (CD Iso) on PC Magazine Italia > cover mount DVD-ROM (paid circulation of 45,000 copies). > > Is it possible? We need an explicit written permission (with a simple > e-mail) from you in order to distribute your software in our country. > > Your software will be downloaded from your web site and published as is > in our DVD-ROM without any modification. We'll include in the DVD Html > interface your web site address and all the files of the original > distribution. > > Please note that our DVD-ROM is a gift for our readers, it include many > other freeware, shareware and open source software and it is not sold > neither distributed without the magazine. If you are including a copy of Fedora as it is, you don't need any explicit permission from the Fedora project for redistribution. The trademark guidelines already cover this http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/TrademarkGuidelines Thank you for including Fedora in your magazine. Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Jul 15 13:59:56 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:59:56 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] LGPLv2 and v2.1 for fonts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1216130396.17003.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 22:27 -0500, Matt_Domsch at Dell.com wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454128 > requests review of a set of 4 fonts. 3 are licensed LGPLv2, one > LGPLv2.1. These are not listed at > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts > therefore I request clarification. The LGPL (like the GPL) is an odd license for fonts, but it does give permission to use/modify/redistribute. You should ask the Font SIG, but I've got no problem there. ~spot From john.lever at btinternet.com Wed Jul 16 16:19:48 2008 From: john.lever at btinternet.com (John) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:19:48 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] license questions for user apps Message-ID: <000c01c8e75f$c51d72d0$0201a8c0@fujitsu> Dear All, I am looking at developing an application based on FEDORA - which will run from a bootable USB under FEDORA. The application will probably be written in in C or C++ (gcc) and use gtk libraries or use TCL/TK . I may use REALBASIC which if I buy from them does not include license costs for the applications generated and does not include libraries with any licensing costs on them. I then want to distribute the application with a PC commercially ie to sell multiple PCs all with FEDORA on them and all of them running my application. I do not want to contravene any licensing restrictions - but quite honestly the licensing constraints for FEDORA are beyond my mental capabilities. If a license is needed for every machine sold with my application on it what will the license cost for the FEDORA component and any other component ? Rgds, John Lever -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Jul 16 17:21:28 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:51:28 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] license questions for user apps In-Reply-To: <000c01c8e75f$c51d72d0$0201a8c0@fujitsu> References: <000c01c8e75f$c51d72d0$0201a8c0@fujitsu> Message-ID: <487E2E18.9020005@fedoraproject.org> John wrote: > Dear All, > > I am looking at developing an application based on FEDORA - which will > run from a bootable USB under FEDORA. Is this application free and open source software? If so you might want to package it and make it available within Fedora. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/ISV > If a license is needed for every machine sold with my application on it > what will the license cost for the FEDORA component and any other > component ? Zero. If the application itself is not included within Fedora, you cannot call your redistribution, Fedora. Replacing fedora-logos with generic-logos package will remove the major branded items. You might to refer to the following pages http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/TrademarkGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CustomSpins Rahul From dtimms at iinet.net.au Sat Jul 19 02:19:46 2008 From: dtimms at iinet.net.au (David Timms) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:19:46 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] WOL - wide open license - compatibility with Fedora Message-ID: <48814F42.6000506@iinet.net.au> Couldn't see any discussion of WOL previously, so here goes: A particular source file (smbPitchShift.[Ch]) within the rakarrack [1] sources is licensed under WOL: ===== The Wide Open License (WOL) * * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell this software and its * documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that * the above copyright notice and this license appear in all source copies. * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF * ANY KIND. See http://www.dspguru.com/wol.htm ===== Is this compatible with Fedora ? What would be the License field if the whole package was licensed this way ? In this case, the source archive has: - [GPLv3] COPYING (overall copying file). - [GPLv2] header (no or later version) in most source/header files. - [GPL+] 3x files {GPL, no version mentioned, see COPYING}. - WOL 1x file/header What would be the required license, or will a need to query upstream for their licensing intentions {each module tends to have differing authors} ? DaveT. [1]: http://rakarrack.sourceforge.net/ From tcallawa at redhat.com Sat Jul 19 02:28:05 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:28:05 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] WOL - wide open license - compatibility with Fedora In-Reply-To: <48814F42.6000506@iinet.net.au> References: <48814F42.6000506@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <1216434485.3472.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 12:19 +1000, David Timms wrote: > Is this compatible with Fedora ? > What would be the License field if the whole package was licensed this way ? Yes, it's MIT (a minimal variant). Free and GPL compatible. License: MIT > In this case, the source archive has: > - [GPLv3] COPYING (overall copying file). > - [GPLv2] header (no or later version) in most source/header files. > - [GPL+] 3x files {GPL, no version mentioned, see COPYING}. > - WOL 1x file/header > What would be the required license, or will a need to query upstream for > their licensing intentions {each module tends to have differing authors} ? Are they compiled together? If the files with different licenses compile into separate, standalone binaries, then you need to list each license like this: License: FOO and BAR and BAZ If they compile with each other to form one combined work, we'd look at the license on the files and determine what the whole is. In the case that you've documented, it looks like the whole is GPLv2 (the most restrictive GPL license), and the MIT part is absorbed (GPL does that). We ignore COPYING. License: GPLv2 Of course, it is odd that they would include a COPYING that has GPLv3 in it, but not have any source files with GPLv3 attribution. If you have a SRPM, I can look at it and be sure. ~spot From dtimms at iinet.net.au Sat Jul 19 08:01:20 2008 From: dtimms at iinet.net.au (David Timms) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:01:20 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] WOL - wide open license - compatibility with Fedora In-Reply-To: <1216434485.3472.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <48814F42.6000506@iinet.net.au> <1216434485.3472.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <48819F50.9010104@iinet.net.au> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > Of course, it is odd that they would include a COPYING that has GPLv3 in > it, but not have any source files with GPLv3 attribution. > > If you have a SRPM, I can look at it and be sure. OK, tomato sauce at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455953 Hopefully I read the licensing intricacies correctly ? DaveT. From tcallawa at redhat.com Sat Jul 19 11:18:11 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 07:18:11 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] WOL - wide open license - compatibility with Fedora In-Reply-To: <48819F50.9010104@iinet.net.au> References: <48814F42.6000506@iinet.net.au> <1216434485.3472.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> <48819F50.9010104@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <1216466291.3472.50.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 18:01 +1000, David Timms wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > Of course, it is odd that they would include a COPYING that has GPLv3 in > > it, but not have any source files with GPLv3 attribution. > > > > If you have a SRPM, I can look at it and be sure. > OK, tomato sauce at: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455953 > Hopefully I read the licensing intricacies correctly ? Looks good. ~spot From dgoodwin at dangerouslyinc.com Sun Jul 20 21:26:00 2008 From: dgoodwin at dangerouslyinc.com (Devan Goodwin) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:26:00 -0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Thrift Software License Compatible With Fedora? Message-ID: <889652910807201426r78e8b6f7m84a8b5bd613624d0@mail.gmail.com> Greetings, was wondering if this license is suitable for inclusion in Fedora and if so, what I should state it's license as in the spec file. Thanks, Devan Thrift Software License Copyright (c) 2006- Facebook, Inc. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization obtaining a copy of the software and accompanying documentation covered by this license (the "Software") to use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, and transmit the Software, and to prepare derivative works of the Software, and to permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to do so, all subject to the following: The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement, including the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer, must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and all derivative works of the Software, unless such copies or derivative works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. -- Devan Goodwin http://dgoodwin.dangerouslyinc.com From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Jul 21 02:36:44 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:36:44 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Thrift Software License Compatible With Fedora? In-Reply-To: <889652910807201426r78e8b6f7m84a8b5bd613624d0@mail.gmail.com> References: <889652910807201426r78e8b6f7m84a8b5bd613624d0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1216607804.3472.65.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 18:26 -0300, Devan Goodwin wrote: > Greetings, was wondering if this license is suitable for inclusion in > Fedora and if so, what I should state it's license as in the spec > file. Yes, it's fine, it is yet another MIT variant (this is #20). Use: License: MIT Thanks, ~spot From dan at danny.cz Tue Jul 22 11:45:43 2008 From: dan at danny.cz (Dan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hor=E1k?=) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:45:43 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Open CASCADE Technology Public License Message-ID: <1216727143.3444.3.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Hi, can you give me "Fedora acceptability statement" for the Open CASCADE Technology Public License available at http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ ? Thanks Dan PS: first copy of this mail is moderator's queue since Friday -- Fedora and Red Hat package maintainer From fab at fedoraproject.org Wed Jul 23 21:53:30 2008 From: fab at fedoraproject.org (Fabian Affolter) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:53:30 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] NPO in the Fedora Project Message-ID: <4887A85A.6050408@fedoraproject.org> Hi all, We have a NPO [1][2] in the 'ambassadors' group. According to the CLA there is no problem that the contributor is a legal entity. And inside FAmSCo we didn't see any obstacles when an "ambassadors" consist of many humans. I just want to make sure that we aren't running into legal problems in the future because we don't know if the person who sign the CLA in the name of the NPO or NGO is authorized to do that. For instance, Fedora EMEA e. V. have a point in the statutes that administer the signing power. Kind regards, Fabian [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Lankanet [2] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/view/lankanet Kind regards, Fabian -- Fingerprint: 2F6C 930F D3C4 7E38 6AFA 4EB4 E23C D2DD 36A4 397F Fedora always leads and never follows. From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Jul 25 00:36:15 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:06:15 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [Fedora-olpc-list] introduction and a question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48891FFF.9040709@fedoraproject.org> Walter Bender wrote: > I'm Walter Bender, one of the founders of Sugar Labs > (http://sugarlabs.org). I'm excited that there Fedora community is > rallying around OLPC and consequently Sugar. > > My question is in regards to packaging Squeak/Etoys for Fedora. > believe that there has been an open ticket regarding this for quite > some time (it is on the Package Maintainers Wishlist under OLPC, but > would be of more general applicability as well). Any advice as to how > to move things forward? There was questions raised on licensing at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList#OLPC_Wishlist Perhaps you can talk to Spot (cc'ed) and get it clarified? Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Jul 25 14:25:42 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:25:42 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [Fedora-olpc-list] introduction and a question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1216995942.3871.83.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 08:49 -0400, Walter Bender wrote: > I've included below the correspondence between VPRI and Debian in > regard the license question. I'm not sure it is safe to assume that because a contributor was not reached, they are therefore okay with permitting a second party to relicense their copyrighted work. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Jul 25 14:38:07 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:38:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [Fedora-olpc-list] introduction and a question In-Reply-To: References: <1216995942.3871.83.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1216996687.3871.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 10:28 -0400, Walter Bender wrote: > Any suggestions as to how to proceed then? The VPRI team has agreed to > remove/rewrite any contributions that people don't want relicensed. Either of those options would be the logical next step (you have to assume that non-responsive contributors do not agree to a relicensing, unless there is some sort of contributor agreement in place which stipulates otherwise). When the source tree is 100% MIT (or some other equally free license), then we should have no problem including it in Fedora. ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Jul 25 15:45:52 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:15:52 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [Fedora-olpc-list] introduction and a question In-Reply-To: <1216996687.3871.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1216995942.3871.83.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1216996687.3871.86.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4889F530.4080203@fedoraproject.org> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 10:28 -0400, Walter Bender wrote: >> Any suggestions as to how to proceed then? The VPRI team has agreed to >> remove/rewrite any contributions that people don't want relicensed. > > Either of those options would be the logical next step (you have to > assume that non-responsive contributors do not agree to a relicensing, > unless there is some sort of contributor agreement in place which > stipulates otherwise). When the source tree is 100% MIT (or some other > equally free license), then we should have no problem including it in > Fedora. When there was a discussion about the possibility of relicensing the Linux kernel to GPLv3, there was a proposal that involved the legality of unilateral declaration followed by a time gap for opposition instead of getting explicit written agreement from all the contributors. You might want to talk to Red Hat Legal to check whether this is a possibility. It sounded more like a leap of faith than law but one can never assume laws to be logical. Rahul From fangqq at gmail.com Sat Jul 26 18:13:33 2008 From: fangqq at gmail.com (Qianqian Fang) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:13:33 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: unifont in Fedora In-Reply-To: <9e1ded0a0807260955l5e6c8a5cjc1b1cc8c533d4885@mail.gmail.com> References: <9e1ded0a0807251402g8781fcfxf22a871853b2654@mail.gmail.com> <9e1ded0a0807260955l5e6c8a5cjc1b1cc8c533d4885@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <488B694D.8000608@gmail.com> hi Paul My understanding to Fedora's CLA is that you are not assigning the full copyright to Redhat, rather, you ONLY allow them to "to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute your Contribution and such derivative works; ..." In another word, if you define your software license as GPLv2, Redhat can only create derivative work from your software, therefore, they can only be GPLv2. Redhat can not own the full copyright and revoke your original license of your software. The only word I am not clear is "sublicense", although it does not sound like "re-license" or "dual-license". I CCed Fedora legal mailing list, and hope someone can provide a more definite answer to your concerns. Qianqian Paul Hardy wrote: > Qianqian, > > I signed up for a Fedora account to submit my work. I then found that > I had to sign a CLA (Contributor License Agreement) before my work > could be submitted to the Fedora project. The CLA requires you to > assign a non-exclusive copyright to Red Hat. If Red Hat has a > copyright to my work, they can circumvent the GPL. For example, they > can make proprietary changes to anything I send them, then have > exclusive rights to change their modified work for profit, denying me > and anyone else access to their proprietary changes. > > I therefore do not want to sign the CLA, so I am not going to put > unifont into Fedora myself. > > However, please feel free to enter unifont into Fedora if you want. > That way you're entering my work without my signing away a copyright > (thereby giving Red Hat the power to circumvent the GPL). > > If you don't want to put unifont into Fedora yourself, I'll let other > people in Fedora who emailed me about this know so one of them can if > they want. I had already told a few (with you CCed on the email) that > I would be bringing the font into Fedora. > > Let me know what you want to do one way or another: either put unifont > into Fedora yourself, or let me know you aren't going to do it so I > can email the other people who asked about getting the font into > Fedora. > > Thanks! > > > Paul > > > > From jonstanley at gmail.com Sun Jul 27 04:56:01 2008 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:56:01 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: unifont in Fedora In-Reply-To: <488B694D.8000608@gmail.com> References: <9e1ded0a0807251402g8781fcfxf22a871853b2654@mail.gmail.com> <9e1ded0a0807260955l5e6c8a5cjc1b1cc8c533d4885@mail.gmail.com> <488B694D.8000608@gmail.com> Message-ID: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice :) On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Qianqian Fang wrote: > hi Paul > > My understanding to Fedora's CLA is that you are not assigning the full > copyright > to Redhat, rather, you ONLY allow them to "to reproduce, prepare derivative > works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute > your > Contribution and such derivative works; ..." This is correct, this is not a copyright assignment, but rather a license grant. > > In another word, if you define your software license as GPLv2, Redhat can > only > create derivative work from your software, therefore, they can only be > GPLv2. Redhat can not own the full copyright and revoke your original > license of your software. They cannot do this - the terms of the GPLv2 apply to that code. They *can* create derivative works and distribute the result under GPLv2, however, this is the same right that anyone who has received a copy of the software can exercise. > The only word I am not clear is "sublicense", although it does not sound > like "re-license" or "dual-license". Sublicense in this context means that they can pass the GPLv2 on to other parties (again, nothing that any other party couldn't do anyway) >> However, please feel free to enter unifont into Fedora if you want. >> That way you're entering my work without my signing away a copyright >> (thereby giving Red Hat the power to circumvent the GPL). Much of the work that is packaged in Fedora is not packaged by the upstream author. Therefore, even if the CLA somehow gave Red Hat magical powers to relicense stuff (it doesn't), then the actual praticality of that From john.lever at btinternet.com Sun Jul 27 10:45:25 2008 From: john.lever at btinternet.com (John) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:45:25 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] please remove me from mailing list Message-ID: <000d01c8efd5$e0e9cb70$0201a8c0@fujitsu> Can you remove me from the list please. Rgds, John Lever -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Jul 28 15:05:05 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:05:05 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: unifont in Fedora In-Reply-To: <488B694D.8000608@gmail.com> References: <9e1ded0a0807251402g8781fcfxf22a871853b2654@mail.gmail.com> <9e1ded0a0807260955l5e6c8a5cjc1b1cc8c533d4885@mail.gmail.com> <488B694D.8000608@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1217257505.3863.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 14:13 -0400, Qianqian Fang wrote: > My understanding to Fedora's CLA is that you are not assigning the > full copyright to Redhat, rather, you ONLY allow them to "to > reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly > perform, sublicense, and distribute your Contribution and such > derivative works; ..." > > In another word, if you define your software license as GPLv2, Redhat > can only create derivative work from your software, therefore, they > can only be GPLv2. Redhat can not own the full copyright and revoke > your original license of your software. This is one of the main reasons why we're in the process of trying to rework the CLA, that section is not clear at all. 1D says "Any Contribution submitted by you to the Project shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions, unless you explicitly state otherwise in the submission." We're interpreting that like this (in English): If you contribute something to Fedora which is properly licensed, we will use it under the terms of that license. In the case where you contribute something to us without any license whatsoever, we will use it under the terms of an extremely permissive license. Specifically, that license is: "You hereby grant to Red Hat, Inc., on behalf of the Project, and to recipients of software distributed by the Project: (a) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute your Contribution and such derivative works; and, (b) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, irrevocable (subject to Section 3) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer your Contribution and derivative works thereof, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by you that are necessarily infringed by your Contribution alone or by combination of your Contribution with the work to which you submitted the Contribution. Except for the license granted in this section, you reserve all right, title and interest in and to your Contributions." (aka, section 2 of the Individual CLA) Nowhere in the CLA do you assign copyright to Red Hat, Fedora, or anyone else. Thanks, Tom Callaway, Fedora Legal (Disclaimer: IANAL, this should not be considered legal advice) From stickster at gmail.com Mon Jul 28 17:37:30 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:37:30 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Translated license? Message-ID: <1217266650.1916.2.camel@victoria> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraLegalIssues#aka_the_.22We_Are_Not_Lawyers.22_page The only priority 1 item shown is a very old Docs question regarding licensing and translation. The resource cost of repeatedly translating, checking, and maintaining a license in this way seems prohibitive. We ask whether translators can/should *start* on this effort, but do we really want to go down that road at all? If we're not going to carry it through to completion, is this item still relevant? -- 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 tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Jul 28 17:45:09 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:45:09 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Translated license? In-Reply-To: <1217266650.1916.2.camel@victoria> References: <1217266650.1916.2.camel@victoria> Message-ID: <1217267109.3863.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 13:37 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraLegalIssues#aka_the_.22We_Are_Not_Lawyers.22_page > > The only priority 1 item shown is a very old Docs question regarding > licensing and translation. The resource cost of repeatedly translating, > checking, and maintaining a license in this way seems prohibitive. We > ask whether translators can/should *start* on this effort, but do we > really want to go down that road at all? If we're not going to carry it > through to completion, is this item still relevant? For what it is worth, translated licenses is really failure. No translated license will hold up in court, and isn't even good legal advice. To do it properly is... expensive. ~spot From fangqq at gmail.com Tue Jul 29 02:24:43 2008 From: fangqq at gmail.com (Qianqian Fang) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:24:43 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: unifont in Fedora In-Reply-To: <1217257505.3863.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <9e1ded0a0807251402g8781fcfxf22a871853b2654@mail.gmail.com> <9e1ded0a0807260955l5e6c8a5cjc1b1cc8c533d4885@mail.gmail.com> <488B694D.8000608@gmail.com> <1217257505.3863.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <488E7F6B.2040002@gmail.com> thank you Tom, and also Jon for an earlier reply. I think your replies help a lot to convince Paul for his prospective contribution to Fedora. and I am also looking forward to a more clear statement of CLA on these discussed issues. Qianqian Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 14:13 -0400, Qianqian Fang wrote: > >> My understanding to Fedora's CLA is that you are not assigning the >> full copyright to Redhat, rather, you ONLY allow them to "to >> reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly >> perform, sublicense, and distribute your Contribution and such >> derivative works; ..." >> >> In another word, if you define your software license as GPLv2, Redhat >> can only create derivative work from your software, therefore, they >> can only be GPLv2. Redhat can not own the full copyright and revoke >> your original license of your software. >> > > This is one of the main reasons why we're in the process of trying to > rework the CLA, that section is not clear at all. > > 1D says "Any Contribution submitted by you to the Project shall be under > the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms > or conditions, unless you explicitly state otherwise in the submission." > > We're interpreting that like this (in English): > > If you contribute something to Fedora which is properly licensed, we > will use it under the terms of that license. In the case where you > contribute something to us without any license whatsoever, we will use > it under the terms of an extremely permissive license. > > Specifically, that license is: > > "You hereby grant to Red Hat, Inc., on behalf of the Project, and to > recipients of software distributed by the Project: > > (a) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, > irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, > publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute your > Contribution and such derivative works; and, > > (b) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, > irrevocable (subject to Section 3) patent license to make, have made, > use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer your > Contribution and derivative works thereof, where such license applies > only to those patent claims licensable by you that are necessarily > infringed by your Contribution alone or by combination of your > Contribution with the work to which you submitted the Contribution. > Except for the license granted in this section, you reserve all right, > title and interest in and to your Contributions." > > (aka, section 2 of the Individual CLA) > > Nowhere in the CLA do you assign copyright to Red Hat, Fedora, or anyone > else. > > Thanks, > > Tom Callaway, Fedora Legal > > (Disclaimer: IANAL, this should not be considered legal advice) > > > From john.lever at btinternet.com Wed Jul 16 15:40:11 2008 From: john.lever at btinternet.com (John) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:40:11 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] fedora license Message-ID: <000801c8e75a$3c1c4e20$0201a8c0@fujitsu> Dear All, I am looking at developing an application based on FEDORA - which will run from a bootable USB under FEDORA. The application will probably be written in in C or C++ (gcc) and use gtk libraries or use TCL/TK . I then want to distribute the application with a PC commercially ie to sell multiple PCs all with FEDORA on them and all of them running my application. I do not want to contravene any licensing restrictions - but quite honestly the licensing constraints for FEDORA are beyond my mental capabilities. If a license is needed for every machine sold what will the license cost ? Rgds, John Lever -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan at danny.cz Fri Jul 18 19:57:08 2008 From: dan at danny.cz (Dan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hor=E1k?=) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:57:08 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Open CASCADE Technology Public License Message-ID: <1216411029.3493.20.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Hi, can you give me "Fedora acceptability statement" for the Open CASCADE Technology Public License available at http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ ? Thanks Dan -- Fedora and Red Hat package maintainer From walter.bender at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 00:43:21 2008 From: walter.bender at gmail.com (Walter Bender) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:43:21 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [Fedora-olpc-list] introduction and a question In-Reply-To: <48891FFF.9040709@fedoraproject.org> References: <48891FFF.9040709@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: Let me confirm with Kim (and Bert) that we have the license sorted out and get back to you. Thanks. -walter On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Walter Bender wrote: >> >> I'm Walter Bender, one of the founders of Sugar Labs >> (http://sugarlabs.org). I'm excited that there Fedora community is >> rallying around OLPC and consequently Sugar. >> >> My question is in regards to packaging Squeak/Etoys for Fedora. >> believe that there has been an open ticket regarding this for quite >> some time (it is on the Package Maintainers Wishlist under OLPC, but >> would be of more general applicability as well). Any advice as to how >> to move things forward? > > There was questions raised on licensing at > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList#OLPC_Wishlist > > Perhaps you can talk to Spot (cc'ed) and get it clarified? > > Rahul > From walter.bender at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 12:49:31 2008 From: walter.bender at gmail.com (Walter Bender) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [Fedora-olpc-list] introduction and a question Message-ID: > There was questions raised on licensing at > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList#OLPC_Wishlist > > Perhaps you can talk to Spot (cc'ed) and get it clarified? > > Rahul I've included below the correspondence between VPRI and Debian in regard the license question. regards. -walter ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kim Rose Date: Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:26 AM Subject: Fwd: Squeak images/relicensing To: Walter Bender Cc: Bert Freudenberg Hi, Walter - Here is a copy of my message to Jose. -- Kim Begin forwarded message: > From: Kim Rose > Date: April 4, 2008 9:18:11 AM PDT > To: Jos? L. Redrejo Rodr?guez > Cc: Bert Freudenberg , Yoshiki Ohshima , Craig Latta , Kim Rose > Subject: Squeak images/relicensing > > Hi, Jose - > > I hope you and your family are all doing well. > > I have seen the recent exchange of email between you and others regarding the relicensing effort of Squeak to the MIT License. I can see you are mostly up to date with what is going on. However, as Bert has requested I wanted to write to you directly and confirm Bert's most recent responses. > > > ----------- > Jose: > >> >> Can you confirm me that the code that has not been relicensed has been >> removed from the olpc image? >> > > Bert: > > No. But VPRI as the original authors take responsibility for the earlier contributions made under the Squeak License. VPRI made every justifiable effort to contact the contributors. Not a single contributor was against relicensing, so it is safe to assume that even those that could not be reached would be happy to see their code continue to be used. They submitted it for official inclusion in Squeak, after all. So who would argue that, if not the contributors themselves? > > ---------- > > As Bert says VPRI spearheaded an effort to contact *every* contributor to the Squeak code base. We did not receive a single negative response and have a notebook with 100s of signed re-licensing agreements. We also put out several "speak now or forever hold your peace" group emails indicating the relicensing was taking effect and should anyone object to relicensing their code to let us know. > > Our attitude is the code IS now relicensed under the MIT license. Should, a contributor, at any time, write to VPRI and request their code be taken out of the code base, we would comply. > > Please do not let this interfere with or hold up your efforts. > > Thanks again and best regards, > Kim > > From walter.bender at gmail.com Fri Jul 25 14:28:39 2008 From: walter.bender at gmail.com (Walter Bender) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:28:39 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [Fedora-olpc-list] introduction and a question In-Reply-To: <1216995942.3871.83.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1216995942.3871.83.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: Any suggestions as to how to proceed then? The VPRI team has agreed to remove/rewrite any contributions that people don't want relicensed. -walter On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 08:49 -0400, Walter Bender wrote: >> I've included below the correspondence between VPRI and Debian in >> regard the license question. > > I'm not sure it is safe to assume that because a contributor was not > reached, they are therefore okay with permitting a second party to > relicense their copyrighted work. > > ~spot > > From noriko at redhat.com Wed Jul 30 01:38:00 2008 From: noriko at redhat.com (Noriko Mizumoto) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:38:00 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Translated license? In-Reply-To: <1217267109.3863.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1217266650.1916.2.camel@victoria> <1217267109.3863.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <488FC5F8.402@redhat.com> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 13:37 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraLegalIssues#aka_the_.22We_Are_Not_Lawyers.22_page >> >> The only priority 1 item shown is a very old Docs question regarding >> licensing and translation. The resource cost of repeatedly translating, >> checking, and maintaining a license in this way seems prohibitive. We >> ask whether translators can/should *start* on this effort, but do we >> really want to go down that road at all? If we're not going to carry it >> through to completion, is this item still relevant? > > For what it is worth, translated licenses is really failure. No > translated license will hold up in court, and isn't even good legal > advice. To do it properly is... expensive. > > ~spot It may be translated with disclaimer, but for this particular legal notice, it seem not worth to do so at least to me. noriko > From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Jul 30 17:49:27 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:19:27 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] fedora license In-Reply-To: <000801c8e75a$3c1c4e20$0201a8c0@fujitsu> References: <000801c8e75a$3c1c4e20$0201a8c0@fujitsu> Message-ID: <4890A9A7.9050007@fedoraproject.org> John wrote: > Dear All, > > I am looking at developing an application based on FEDORA - which will > run from a bootable USB under FEDORA. > > The application will probably be written in in C or C++ (gcc) and use > gtk libraries or use TCL/TK . > > I then want to distribute the application with a PC commercially ie to > sell multiple PCs all with FEDORA on them and all of them running my > application. > > I do not want to contravene any licensing restrictions - but quite > honestly the licensing constraints for FEDORA are beyond my mental > capabilities. > > If a license is needed for every machine sold what will the license cost ? Wasn't this question already answered a few weeks back? Rahul From jwboyer at gmail.com Wed Jul 30 17:52:36 2008 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:52:36 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] fedora license In-Reply-To: <4890A9A7.9050007@fedoraproject.org> References: <000801c8e75a$3c1c4e20$0201a8c0@fujitsu> <4890A9A7.9050007@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1217440356.13523.5.camel@weaponx> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 23:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > John wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > I am looking at developing an application based on FEDORA - which will > > run from a bootable USB under FEDORA. > > > > The application will probably be written in in C or C++ (gcc) and use > > gtk libraries or use TCL/TK . > > > > I then want to distribute the application with a PC commercially ie to > > sell multiple PCs all with FEDORA on them and all of them running my > > application. > > > > I do not want to contravene any licensing restrictions - but quite > > honestly the licensing constraints for FEDORA are beyond my mental > > capabilities. > > > > If a license is needed for every machine sold what will the license cost ? > > Wasn't this question already answered a few weeks back? Yes. And I think this is the mail server being stupid because if you look at the date on the email it's dated Jul 16. josh