From stickster at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 00:59:09 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:59:09 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] And another license In-Reply-To: <20080524071237.0d6a52bc@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <20080524071237.0d6a52bc@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <1212368349.6521.11.camel@victoria> On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 07:12 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, 23 May 2008 21:07:02 -0400 > "Jon Stanley" wrote: > > > This looks possibly MIT-ish to me. Can someone confirm? (this is for scrip) > > > > ! Copyright (c) 1997, 1998 the Regents of the University of > > ! California. > > ! > > ! Unless otherwise indicated, this software has been authored > > ! by an employee or employees of the University of California, > > ! operator of the Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract > > ! No. W-7405-ENG-36 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. > > ! Government has rights to use, reproduce, and distribute this > > ! software. The public may copy and use this software without > > ! charge, provided that this Notice and any statement of authorship > > ! are reproduced on all copies. Neither the Government nor the > > ! University makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes > > ! any liability or responsibility for the use of this software. > > The public isn't explicitly granted the right to modify. From my time there, my understanding was that code created and published by the U.S. government (or contractors under hire to do so) is public domain, and the government isn't allowed to deny the public the right to modify code it produces. This probably bears a closer look and some communication to see if someone just mistakenly slapped a license text on it to be open-sourcey. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- 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 Jun 2 03:20:15 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 23:20:15 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] And another license In-Reply-To: <1212368349.6521.11.camel@victoria> References: <20080524071237.0d6a52bc@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <1212368349.6521.11.camel@victoria> Message-ID: <1212376815.7710.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2008-06-01 at 20:59 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > From my time there, my understanding was that code created and published > by the U.S. government (or contractors under hire to do so) is public > domain, and the government isn't allowed to deny the public the right to > modify code it produces. This probably bears a closer look and some > communication to see if someone just mistakenly slapped a license text > on it to be open-sourcey. Contractors are exempt from this. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_of_the_United_States_Government#Works_produced_by_contractors The good news is that this license has been revised several times, and the latest incarnation is Free and GPLv2/v3 compatible. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/SCRIP License: SCRIP Thanks, ~spot From stickster at gmail.com Tue Jun 3 23:40:30 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] And another license In-Reply-To: <1212376815.7710.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20080524071237.0d6a52bc@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <1212368349.6521.11.camel@victoria> <1212376815.7710.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1212536430.16859.19.camel@victoria> On Sun, 2008-06-01 at 23:20 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Sun, 2008-06-01 at 20:59 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > From my time there, my understanding was that code created and published > > by the U.S. government (or contractors under hire to do so) is public > > domain, and the government isn't allowed to deny the public the right to > > modify code it produces. This probably bears a closer look and some > > communication to see if someone just mistakenly slapped a license text > > on it to be open-sourcey. > > Contractors are exempt from this. See: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_of_the_United_States_Government#Works_produced_by_contractors Thanks for the correction, Spot, this is good reading. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- 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 valent.turkovic at gmail.com Wed Jun 4 15:39:11 2008 From: valent.turkovic at gmail.com (Valent Turkovic) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:39:11 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] missing link Message-ID: <64b14b300806040839j76ed5dbfy514f3c599b6ed77b@mail.gmail.com> Hi, on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal#Open_Legal_Issues there is a missing link for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraLegalIssues page. As I can't edit that wiki (restrictions?) page can somebody do it? Cheers, Valent. -- http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic From valent.turkovic at gmail.com Wed Jun 4 16:11:41 2008 From: valent.turkovic at gmail.com (Valent Turkovic) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 18:11:41 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: missing link In-Reply-To: <64b14b300806040839j76ed5dbfy514f3c599b6ed77b@mail.gmail.com> References: <64b14b300806040839j76ed5dbfy514f3c599b6ed77b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <64b14b300806040911g40d5b1eye80bc9b6abe9ac95@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Valent Turkovic wrote: > Hi, > on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal#Open_Legal_Issues there is a > missing link for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraLegalIssues > page. As I can't edit that wiki (restrictions?) page can somebody do > it? > > Cheers, > Valent. Thank you. -- http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic From loganjerry at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 20:48:45 2008 From: loganjerry at gmail.com (Jerry James) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:48:45 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CVC3 License Message-ID: <870180fe0806111348l286fe737j5bc9e83ee75b1c09@mail.gmail.com> The CVC3 project [1] has a license [2] that is mostly New BSD (no advertising), but differs from it in a few ways. In particular, I am concerned about clause #3. Is this license acceptable for Fedora? Thank you. [1] http://www.cs.nyu.edu/acsys/cvc3/ [2] http://www.cs.nyu.edu/acsys/cvc3/doc/LICENSE.html -- Jerry James http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/ From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Jun 11 21:01:32 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CVC3 License In-Reply-To: <870180fe0806111348l286fe737j5bc9e83ee75b1c09@mail.gmail.com> References: <870180fe0806111348l286fe737j5bc9e83ee75b1c09@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1213218092.3461.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 14:48 -0600, Jerry James wrote: > The CVC3 project [1] has a license [2] that is mostly New BSD (no > advertising), but differs from it in a few ways. In particular, I am > concerned about clause #3. Is this license acceptable for Fedora? Hmm. I need to double check with the lawyers, but I suspect it is. Can you email Clark Barrett and see if he is willing to give you (assuming you'd be the Fedora maintainer) written permission to use the CVC3 "trademark" with Fedora's modifications, past/present/future, as needed, or if he would need to approve each modification before we could apply it, in order to use the "CVC3" name? Thanks, ~spot From dwheeler at dwheeler.com Thu Jun 12 01:38:46 2008 From: dwheeler at dwheeler.com (David A. Wheeler) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:38:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CVC3 License In-Reply-To: <1213218092.3461.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <870180fe0806111348l286fe737j5bc9e83ee75b1c09@mail.gmail.com> <1213218092.3461.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: Tom "spot" Callaway: >Can you email Clark Barrett and see if he is willing to give you (assuming > you'd be the Fedora maintainer) written permission to use the CVC3 > "trademark" with Fedora's modifications, past/present/future, as needed, > or if he would need to approve each modification before we could apply > it, in order to use the "CVC3" name? If he's not willing to grant such permission, perhaps it'd be acceptable to just rename the package (e.g., "cvc3mod"), and clearly stating in the description that it's a _derivative_ from CVC3 and thus _not_ necessarily the official "cvc3". If that's not enough, the executable program could be renamed, but then install a symlink from "cvc3" to it. That way, programs that expect its "old" name would keep working. --- David A. Wheeler From loganjerry at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 16:14:14 2008 From: loganjerry at gmail.com (Jerry James) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:14:14 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CVC3 License In-Reply-To: <1213218092.3461.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <870180fe0806111348l286fe737j5bc9e83ee75b1c09@mail.gmail.com> <1213218092.3461.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <870180fe0806120914q3423932qd4e6731f44b36d6d@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > Hmm. I need to double check with the lawyers, but I suspect it is. Can > you email Clark Barrett and see if he is willing to give you (assuming > you'd be the Fedora maintainer) written permission to use the CVC3 > "trademark" with Fedora's modifications, past/present/future, as needed, > or if he would need to approve each modification before we could apply > it, in order to use the "CVC3" name? I sent email to Clark last night asking this question, with no response so far. I'll let you know when I get an answer. Thank you! -- Jerry James http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/ From dominik at greysector.net Fri Jun 13 10:55:43 2008 From: dominik at greysector.net (Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:55:43 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GL2PS License Message-ID: <20080613105543.GA2656@mokona.greysector.net> Hi. I'd like to package gl2ps (http://www.geuz.org/gl2ps/) which is dual-licensed under GPLv2+ and GL2PSv2+ (http://www.geuz.org/gl2ps/COPYING.GL2PS). May I use the following License: tag in the spec file? License: LGPLv2+ or GLS2PSv2+ Regards, R. -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann Livna http://rpm.livna.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" From dominik at greysector.net Fri Jun 13 11:15:15 2008 From: dominik at greysector.net (Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:15:15 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GL2PS License In-Reply-To: <20080613105543.GA2656@mokona.greysector.net> References: <20080613105543.GA2656@mokona.greysector.net> Message-ID: <20080613111515.GA2752@mokona.greysector.net> On Friday, 13 June 2008 at 12:55, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > Hi. > > I'd like to package gl2ps (http://www.geuz.org/gl2ps/) which is dual-licensed > under GPLv2+ and GL2PSv2+ (http://www.geuz.org/gl2ps/COPYING.GL2PS). May I use I meant LGPLv2+. > the following License: tag in the spec file? > > License: LGPLv2+ or GLS2PSv2+ Typo. Make it: License: LGPLv2+ or GL2PSLv2+ Regards, R. -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann Livna http://rpm.livna.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Jun 13 11:17:55 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:17:55 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GL2PS License In-Reply-To: <20080613105543.GA2656@mokona.greysector.net> References: <20080613105543.GA2656@mokona.greysector.net> Message-ID: <1213355875.5191.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:55 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > Hi. > > I'd like to package gl2ps (http://www.geuz.org/gl2ps/) which is dual-licensed > under GPLv2+ and GL2PSv2+ (http://www.geuz.org/gl2ps/COPYING.GL2PS). May I use > the following License: tag in the spec file? > > License: LGPLv2+ or GLS2PSv2+ So... no. :) The GL2PS license is Free & GPL Compatible, and I've added it to the Good License List as "GL2PS". Even though it specifies a version (and in reference, uses "or later" language), as far as I can tell, only one version of the license exists. If another version exists, we can amend it at that time. Also, is it dual licensed GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+? Assuming LGPLv2+ is correct, it should be: License: LGPLv2+ or GL2PS We really only specify version when there are notable differences in rights or compatibility between different versions of the same license. Thanks, ~spot From dominik at greysector.net Fri Jun 13 12:39:26 2008 From: dominik at greysector.net (Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:39:26 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GL2PS License In-Reply-To: <1213355875.5191.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20080613105543.GA2656@mokona.greysector.net> <1213355875.5191.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20080613123926.GA3300@mokona.greysector.net> On Friday, 13 June 2008 at 13:17, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [...] > Assuming LGPLv2+ is correct, it should be: > > License: LGPLv2+ or GL2PS Done, thanks. Regards, R. -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann Livna http://rpm.livna.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" From loganjerry at gmail.com Fri Jun 13 21:36:27 2008 From: loganjerry at gmail.com (Jerry James) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:36:27 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CVC3 License In-Reply-To: References: <870180fe0806111348l286fe737j5bc9e83ee75b1c09@mail.gmail.com> <1213218092.3461.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <870180fe0806131436gf5f1a0g6d377ec36e6a727e@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 7:38 PM, David A. Wheeler wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway: >>Can you email Clark Barrett and see if he is willing to give you (assuming >> you'd be the Fedora maintainer) written permission to use the CVC3 >> "trademark" with Fedora's modifications, past/present/future, as needed, >> or if he would need to approve each modification before we could apply >> it, in order to use the "CVC3" name? > > If he's not willing to grant such permission, perhaps it'd be acceptable > to just rename the package (e.g., "cvc3mod"), and clearly stating in the > description that it's a _derivative_ from CVC3 and thus _not_ necessarily > the official "cvc3". If that's not enough, the executable program could be > renamed, but then install a symlink from "cvc3" to it. That way, programs > that expect its "old" name would keep working. > > --- David A. Wheeler Here is the response I got from Clark. I'm pasting it in rather than attaching his email, because his email contained the MIME-encoded patches I sent to him, making the entire email rather large. I'll send the entire email to anyone who needs it. The "option 4" to which Clark refers is what David suggested, using a changed name in Fedora. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I had not thought about this particular problem when I used this license. I will have to think about whether to change the license, but for now, I think option 4 is most in the spirit of what we are trying to do. I suggest you call it something that makes it clear you have only made minor changes, like cvc3+patches_for_fedora or something equally transparent. The idea is that anyone can take CVC3 and do whatever they like with it. But if you do change it, that change needs to be reflected somehow in the way you refer to it. You may use this email to justify including the name "cvc3" in what you choose to call it. Long term, I think the best solution would be to invite you to help us synchronize your changes with the main source, acknowledge you as a developer, and then distribute the rpm from the cvc3 web site. Let me know if you would be interested in this. I am hoping to push out a new release by the end of the summer. That would be a good time to consider it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've got to think about what to call it, maybe cvc3-fedora, but given a suitable name, am I okay to proceed with submission of this package? Incidentally, it is in fact necessary to patch this package. There are multiple causes of build failures on Fedora 9, including some GCC 4.3 issues and a doxygen-spawned "dot" process that consumes all memory and dies. Thank you, -- Jerry James http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/ From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Sat Jun 14 18:36:49 2008 From: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mamoru Tasaka) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 03:36:49 +0900 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] NVIDIA license Message-ID: <48540FC1.8010906@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Hello, all: Now I am trying to review rsssserver (bug 450409). First I checked the license issue of this package, then I found some of the codes are licensed under the below: /*********************************************************************NVMH1**** File: nv_algebra.h Copyright (C) 1999, 2002 NVIDIA Corporation This file is provided without support, instruction, or implied warranty of any kind. NVIDIA makes no guarantee of its fitness for a particular purpose and is not liable under any circumstances for any damages or loss whatsoever arising from the use or inability to use this file or items derived from it. Comments: ******************************************************************************/ Is this license allowed for Fedora? (if so, is this GPLv2 compatible?) Regards, Mamoru From tcallawa at redhat.com Sat Jun 14 19:06:28 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:06:28 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] NVIDIA license In-Reply-To: <48540FC1.8010906@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> References: <48540FC1.8010906@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Message-ID: <1213470388.3302.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 03:36 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > Hello, all: > > Now I am trying to review rsssserver (bug 450409). > First I checked the license issue of this package, then I found some of the codes > are licensed under the below: > > /*********************************************************************NVMH1**** > File: > nv_algebra.h > > Copyright (C) 1999, 2002 NVIDIA Corporation > This file is provided without support, instruction, or implied warranty of any > kind. NVIDIA makes no guarantee of its fitness for a particular purpose and is > not liable under any circumstances for any damages or loss whatsoever arising > from the use or inability to use this file or items derived from it. This isn't really a license, there is no permission to use, copy, modify, or redistribute. I know you're not going to like this answer, but someone is going to need to contact the copyright holder (NVIDIA Corp) to ask them if they will grant permission to use, copy, modify, and redistribute this source. As-is, non-free. ~spot From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Tue Jun 17 07:37:37 2008 From: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mamoru Tasaka) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:37:37 +0900 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] NVIDIA license In-Reply-To: <1213470388.3302.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <48540FC1.8010906@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <1213470388.3302.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <485769C1.8040800@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Hello, again: Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 06/15/2008 04:06 AM +9:00: > On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 03:36 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: >> Hello, all: >> >> Now I am trying to review rsssserver (bug 450409). >> First I checked the license issue of this package, then I found some of the codes >> are licensed under the below: >> >> /*********************************************************************NVMH1**** >> File: >> nv_algebra.h >> >> Copyright (C) 1999, 2002 NVIDIA Corporation >> This file is provided without support, instruction, or implied warranty of any >> kind. NVIDIA makes no guarantee of its fitness for a particular purpose and is >> not liable under any circumstances for any damages or loss whatsoever arising >> from the use or inability to use this file or items derived from it. > > This isn't really a license, there is no permission to use, copy, > modify, or redistribute. I know you're not going to like this answer, > but someone is going to need to contact the copyright holder (NVIDIA > Corp) to ask them if they will grant permission to use, copy, modify, > and redistribute this source. > > As-is, non-free. > > ~spot The submitter replied to me that the upstream replied to him that the relevant codes are actually licensed under the following: http://developer.download.nvidia.com/licenses/general_license.txt I am very unsure if we can treat this as free. Would you judge this license? Regards, Mamoru From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Jun 18 20:43:13 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:43:13 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CVC3 License In-Reply-To: <870180fe0806180917o330bc817x28cdcb0a03e0900f@mail.gmail.com> References: <870180fe0806111348l286fe737j5bc9e83ee75b1c09@mail.gmail.com> <1213218092.3461.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> <870180fe0806131436gf5f1a0g6d377ec36e6a727e@mail.gmail.com> <870180fe0806180917o330bc817x28cdcb0a03e0900f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1213821793.3556.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 10:17 -0600, Jerry James wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 9:09 PM, David A. Wheeler wrote: > > I suggest not including "fedora" in the name. The changes aren't > > unique to fedora (gcc 4.3, doxygen crashing dot), and this is not a > > fedora-unique application program. > > > > Good names are tricky to find. How about cvc3-mod or cvc3-patched? > > Upstream doesn't seem to care. I think I like cvc3-patched a little > better. Thanks for the suggestion. > > So can I proceed? What do I put in the License field of the spec file? I hate to say this, but please hold off on this. I'm still discussing this one with RH Legal. ~spot From dwheeler at dwheeler.com Sat Jun 14 03:09:14 2008 From: dwheeler at dwheeler.com (David A. Wheeler) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:09:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CVC3 License In-Reply-To: <870180fe0806131436gf5f1a0g6d377ec36e6a727e@mail.gmail.com> References: <870180fe0806111348l286fe737j5bc9e83ee75b1c09@mail.gmail.com> <1213218092.3461.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> <870180fe0806131436gf5f1a0g6d377ec36e6a727e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > I've got to think about what to call it, maybe cvc3-fedora, but given > a suitable name, am I okay to proceed with submission of this package? I suggest not including "fedora" in the name. The changes aren't unique to fedora (gcc 4.3, doxygen crashing dot), and this is not a fedora-unique application program. Good names are tricky to find. How about cvc3-mod or cvc3-patched? --- David A. Wheeler From loganjerry at gmail.com Wed Jun 18 16:17:24 2008 From: loganjerry at gmail.com (Jerry James) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:17:24 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CVC3 License In-Reply-To: References: <870180fe0806111348l286fe737j5bc9e83ee75b1c09@mail.gmail.com> <1213218092.3461.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> <870180fe0806131436gf5f1a0g6d377ec36e6a727e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <870180fe0806180917o330bc817x28cdcb0a03e0900f@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 9:09 PM, David A. Wheeler wrote: > I suggest not including "fedora" in the name. The changes aren't > unique to fedora (gcc 4.3, doxygen crashing dot), and this is not a > fedora-unique application program. > > Good names are tricky to find. How about cvc3-mod or cvc3-patched? Upstream doesn't seem to care. I think I like cvc3-patched a little better. Thanks for the suggestion. So can I proceed? What do I put in the License field of the spec file? -- Jerry James http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/ From pablo.martin-gomez at laposte.net Mon Jun 23 13:50:53 2008 From: pablo.martin-gomez at laposte.net (Martin-Gomez Pablo) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:50:53 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GPLv3+ + additionnal terms Message-ID: <20080623155053.2aa0be5f@laposte.net> Hello all, I forecast packaging MicropolisCore, a free release of the first SimCity's version (quite rewritten),but when EA has released the software under GPLv3, they added the additional terms following (for information, the aim of the release is to propose out-of-box a game in the OLPC) : ------- ADDITIONAL TERMS per GNU GPL Section 7 No trademark or publicity rights are granted. This license does NOT give you any right, title or interest in the trademark SimCity or any other Electronic Arts trademark. You may not distribute any modification of this program using the trademark SimCity or claim any affliation or association with Electronic Arts Inc. or its employees. Any propagation or conveyance of this program must include this copyright notice and these terms. If you convey this program (or any modifications of it) and assume contractual liability for the program to recipients of it, you agree to indemnify Electronic Arts for any liability that those contractual assumptions impose on Electronic Arts. You may not misrepresent the origins of this program; modified versions of the program must be marked as such and not identified as the original program. This disclaimer supplements the one included in the General Public License. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMISSIBLE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, THIS PROGRAM IS PROVIDED TO YOU "AS IS," WITH ALL FAULTS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, AND YOUR USE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. THE ENTIRE RISK OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE RESIDES WITH YOU. ELECTRONIC ARTS DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY WARRANTIES, INCLUDING IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, SATISFACTORY QUALITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS, AND WARRANTIES (IF ANY) ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE, OR TRADE PRACTICE. ELECTRONIC ARTS DOES NOT WARRANT AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE PROGRAM; THAT THE PROGRAM WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS; THAT OPERATION OF THE PROGRAM WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, OR THAT THE PROGRAM WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE OR THAT ANY ERRORS IN THE PROGRAM WILL BE CORRECTED. NO ORAL OR WRITTEN ADVICE PROVIDED BY ELECTRONIC ARTS OR ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CREATE A WARRANTY. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF OR LIMITATIONS ON IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR THE LIMITATIONS ON THE APPLICABLE STATUTORY RIGHTS OF A CONSUMER, SO SOME OR ALL OF THE ABOVE EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. ------- Are they compatibles with the Fedora License Guidelines ? Regards, Pablo From luis at tieguy.org Mon Jun 23 17:35:15 2008 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:35:15 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] GPLv3+ + additionnal terms In-Reply-To: <20080623155053.2aa0be5f@laposte.net> References: <20080623155053.2aa0be5f@laposte.net> Message-ID: <2cb10c440806231035n268b77fcq9d497c675b823b@mail.gmail.com> I certainly don't speak for RH, but I'd hope that these are acceptable, as they appear to be fully within the terms of GPLv3 section 7. Certainly does suggest that standardizing these terms would have been nice, though. Luis (who is assuming but does not actually know for certain that v3 itself is acceptable) On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Martin-Gomez Pablo wrote: > Hello all, > > I forecast packaging MicropolisCore, a free release of the first > SimCity's version (quite rewritten),but when EA has released > the software under GPLv3, they added the additional terms following > (for information, the aim of the release is to propose out-of-box a game > in the OLPC) : > > ------- > ADDITIONAL TERMS per GNU GPL Section 7 > > No trademark or publicity rights are granted. This license does NOT > give you any right, title or interest in the trademark SimCity or any > other Electronic Arts trademark. You may not distribute any > modification of this program using the trademark SimCity or claim any > affliation or association with Electronic Arts Inc. or its employees. > > Any propagation or conveyance of this program must include this > copyright notice and these terms. > > If you convey this program (or any modifications of it) and assume > contractual liability for the program to recipients of it, you agree > to indemnify Electronic Arts for any liability that those contractual > assumptions impose on Electronic Arts. > > You may not misrepresent the origins of this program; modified > versions of the program must be marked as such and not identified as > the original program. > > This disclaimer supplements the one included in the General Public > License. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMISSIBLE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, THIS > PROGRAM IS PROVIDED TO YOU "AS IS," WITH ALL FAULTS, WITHOUT WARRANTY > OF ANY KIND, AND YOUR USE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. THE ENTIRE RISK OF > SATISFACTORY QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE RESIDES WITH YOU. ELECTRONIC ARTS > DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY WARRANTIES, > INCLUDING IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, SATISFACTORY QUALITY, > FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY > RIGHTS, AND WARRANTIES (IF ANY) ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, > USAGE, OR TRADE PRACTICE. ELECTRONIC ARTS DOES NOT WARRANT AGAINST > INTERFERENCE WITH YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE PROGRAM; THAT THE PROGRAM WILL > MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS; THAT OPERATION OF THE PROGRAM WILL BE > UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, OR THAT THE PROGRAM WILL BE COMPATIBLE > WITH THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE OR THAT ANY ERRORS IN THE PROGRAM WILL BE > CORRECTED. NO ORAL OR WRITTEN ADVICE PROVIDED BY ELECTRONIC ARTS OR ANY > AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CREATE A WARRANTY. SOME JURISDICTIONS > DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF OR LIMITATIONS ON IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR > THE LIMITATIONS ON THE APPLICABLE STATUTORY RIGHTS OF A CONSUMER, SO > SOME OR ALL OF THE ABOVE EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO > YOU. > ------- > > Are they compatibles with the Fedora License Guidelines ? > > Regards, > > Pablo > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-legal-list mailing list > Fedora-legal-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list >