From jakub at redhat.com Wed Apr 1 13:16:01 2009 From: jakub at redhat.com (Jakub Jelinek) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:16:01 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] New GCC runtime library exception Message-ID: <20090401131601.GT3160@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> Hi! Could you please eyeball http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html which is supposed to be added to the ATM GPL2+special exception libraries/crtfiles from GCC, it will be very much appreciated. Thanks. Jakub From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Apr 1 13:52:04 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Potential problem with Bitttorrent DHT In-Reply-To: <1dedbbfc0903300437o39358fd7ue3329a3193aefb44@mail.gmail.com> References: <1dedbbfc0903300437o39358fd7ue3329a3193aefb44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49D37184.4090200@redhat.com> On 03/30/2009 07:37 AM, David Nielsen wrote: > As is pointed out by upstream for Monsoon, Novell have disallowed DHT > implementation from the openSUSE repos based on a legal risk as assessed > by openSUSE Legal. The precise nature of the problem is unclear from the > initial mail but Alan McGovern says he will provide information to > interested parties, as such I would like some input from Fedora Legal if > the problem applies to Fedora as well. > > Relevant information > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492297 > http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-gnome/2009-03/msg00048.html > > Regards, > David Nielsen David, I've reached out to my counterpart on the openSUSE side, but I have not yet heard anything in response. Without more information as to the problem, I don't think we can make an intelligent decision here. If Alan is willing to send information to me, we will certainly review the situation. Thanks, ~tom From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Apr 1 13:53:13 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:53:13 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] New GCC runtime library exception In-Reply-To: <20090401131601.GT3160@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> References: <20090401131601.GT3160@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> Message-ID: <49D371C9.3010407@redhat.com> On 04/01/2009 09:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > Could you please eyeball > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html > which is supposed to be added to the ATM GPL2+special exception > libraries/crtfiles from GCC, it will be very much appreciated. No problems on our end. License tag would be: License: GPLv3+ with exceptions ~spot From luis at tieguy.org Wed Apr 1 14:04:35 2009 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:04:35 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Potential problem with Bitttorrent DHT In-Reply-To: <1dedbbfc0903300437o39358fd7ue3329a3193aefb44@mail.gmail.com> References: <1dedbbfc0903300437o39358fd7ue3329a3193aefb44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440904010704p31090609mb45dcf89bb983d57@mail.gmail.com> Note that, historically, suse has prohibited 'real' p2p in their distro on very, very specious legal grounds. (Basically fear that it is per se illegal even though this isn't true in the US, much less elsewhere.) I assume (but have no specific information) that this is just a variant of that. Luis 2009/3/30 David Nielsen : > As is pointed out by upstream for Monsoon, Novell have disallowed DHT > implementation from the openSUSE repos based on a legal risk as assessed by > openSUSE Legal. The precise nature of the problem is unclear from the > initial mail but Alan McGovern says he will provide information to > interested parties, as such I would like some input from Fedora Legal if the > problem applies to Fedora as well. > > Relevant information > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492297 > http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-gnome/2009-03/msg00048.html > > Regards, > David Nielsen > > (I am not on the list so please CC me) > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-legal-list mailing list > Fedora-legal-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list > From ianweller at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 01:41:06 2009 From: ianweller at gmail.com (Ian Weller) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:41:06 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] wordpress plugins -- licensing Message-ID: <20090403014106.GC19739@gmail.com> http://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/ states that all the plugins hosted on WordPress's website (the SVN repo is svn.wp-plugins.org, and wp-plugins.org redirects to the website listed first here) are licensed under the GPL unless otherwise noted in the source. Is it OK to assume GPL then for all non-specific plugins, and if so, which version? -- Ian Weller GnuPG fingerprint: E51E 0517 7A92 70A2 4226 B050 87ED 7C97 EFA8 4A36 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rfontana at redhat.com Fri Apr 3 02:43:50 2009 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:43:50 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] wordpress plugins -- licensing In-Reply-To: <20090403014106.GC19739@gmail.com> References: <20090403014106.GC19739@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090402224350.1e07a722@calliope> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:41:06 -0500 Ian Weller wrote: > http://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/ states that all the plugins hosted > on WordPress's website (the SVN repo is svn.wp-plugins.org, and > wp-plugins.org redirects to the website listed first here) are > licensed under the GPL unless otherwise noted in the source. > > Is it OK to assume GPL then for all non-specific plugins, and if so, > which version? Here I wouldn't assume a plugin without any specific licensing information is licensed under (some version of) the GPL, one particular reason being that elsewhere it is said Want to see your WordPress plugin here? Go add it! All we require is that it be GPL Compatible. http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/ and There are only a few restrictions 1. Your plugin must be GPL Compatible. http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/about/ (both of which link to the gnu.org page on GPL-compatible licenses). This makes it (more) difficult to argue that the author of the non-explicitly-licensed plugin can be expected to have understood that everyone would take GPL to be the license. It would seem to be possible to get your plugin hosted even if you never see, or should have seen, that statement at http://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/. So I think the best course of action in such cases is to contact the author to get clarification on the licensing. - RF From fabian.deutsch at gmx.de Sun Apr 5 17:04:41 2009 From: fabian.deutsch at gmx.de (Fabian Deutsch) Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:04:41 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Using Fedora as a base for some custom appliance. Message-ID: <1238951081.5094.9.camel@decade.local> Hi, I hope this is the correct list :) I'd like to use Fedora as a base for an appliance including some closed-source components. Is this legal, when following the guidelines mentioned in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/TrademarkGuidelines#Distributing_combinations_of_Fedora_software_with_non-Fedora_or_modified_Fedora_software ? The questions is not about how the closed-sourced-components are linked, but more about, whether we can use fedora as a base or not. Greetings fabian From jonstanley at gmail.com Sun Apr 5 17:09:48 2009 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:09:48 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Using Fedora as a base for some custom appliance. In-Reply-To: <1238951081.5094.9.camel@decade.local> References: <1238951081.5094.9.camel@decade.local> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Fabian Deutsch wrote: > The questions is not about how the closed-sourced-components are linked, > but more about, whether we can use fedora as a base or not. IANAL, but this usage is permissible, provided that you use the secondary mark (or some other trademark) for the final product, and follow all of the other requirements in that section. From kanarip at kanarip.com Sun Apr 5 17:27:32 2009 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:27:32 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Using Fedora as a base for some custom appliance. In-Reply-To: References: <1238951081.5094.9.camel@decade.local> Message-ID: <49D8EA04.9040500@kanarip.com> On 04/05/2009 07:09 PM, Jon Stanley wrote: > On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Fabian Deutsch wrote: > >> The questions is not about how the closed-sourced-components are linked, >> but more about, whether we can use fedora as a base or not. > > IANAL, but this usage is permissible, provided that you use the > secondary mark (or some other trademark) for the final product, and > follow all of the other requirements in that section. > Note that these guidelines only apply to the TRADEMARK -the Fedora logo and "Fedora" itself, not the Free programs that are in Fedora; you are Free (again, capital F) to use those. Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip From fabian.deutsch at gmx.de Sun Apr 5 17:57:44 2009 From: fabian.deutsch at gmx.de (Fabian Deutsch) Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:57:44 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Using Fedora as a base for some custom appliance. In-Reply-To: <49D8EA04.9040500@kanarip.com> References: <1238951081.5094.9.camel@decade.local> <49D8EA04.9040500@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <1238954264.5094.10.camel@decade.local> Am Sonntag, den 05.04.2009, 19:27 +0200 schrieb Jeroen van Meeuwen: > On 04/05/2009 07:09 PM, Jon Stanley wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Fabian Deutsch wrote: > > > >> The questions is not about how the closed-sourced-components are linked, > >> but more about, whether we can use fedora as a base or not. > > > > IANAL, but this usage is permissible, provided that you use the > > secondary mark (or some other trademark) for the final product, and > > follow all of the other requirements in that section. > > > > Note that these guidelines only apply to the TRADEMARK -the Fedora logo > and "Fedora" itself, not the Free programs that are in Fedora; you are > Free (again, capital F) to use those. Okay, thanks very much for your comments. Greetings - fabian From jussi.lehtola at iki.fi Tue Apr 7 10:02:25 2009 From: jussi.lehtola at iki.fi (Jussi Lehtola) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:02:25 +0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CDF license Message-ID: <1239098545.6319.70.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hi, I'm packaging TeLa, which requires the NASA CDF library. http://cdf.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Review request is at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494520 The copyright is as follows: Copyright 2008 Space Physics Data Facility NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center This software may be copied or redistributed as long as it is not sold for profit, but it can be incorporated into any other substantive product with or without modifications for profit or non-profit. If the software is modified, it must include the following notices: - The software is not the original (for protectiion of the original author's reputations from any problems introduced by others) - Change history (e.g. date, functionality, etc.) This copyright notice must be reproduced on each copy made. This software is provided as is without any express or implied warranties whatsoever. ** Is the license acceptable for inclusion? -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussilehtola at fedoraproject.org From jwboyer at gmail.com Tue Apr 7 13:50:07 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CDF license In-Reply-To: <1239098545.6319.70.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1239098545.6319.70.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090407135007.GA2386@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 01:02:25PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote: >Hi, > > >I'm packaging TeLa, which requires the NASA CDF library. >http://cdf.gsfc.nasa.gov/ > >Review request is at >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494520 > > >The copyright is as follows: > > >Copyright 2008 >Space Physics Data Facility >NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center > >This software may be copied or redistributed as long as it is not sold >for profit, but it can be incorporated into any other substantive >product with or without modifications for profit or non-profit. If the >software is modified, it must include the following notices: > > - The software is not the original (for protectiion of the original > author's reputations from any problems introduced by others) > > - Change history (e.g. date, functionality, etc.) > >This copyright notice must be reproduced on each copy made. This >software is provided as is without any express or implied warranties >whatsoever. > >** > >Is the license acceptable for inclusion? It would seem no. It has a very confusing 'not sold for profit' item. Spot can weigh in more if needs be. josh From tibbs at math.uh.edu Tue Apr 7 14:54:29 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:54:29 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CDF license In-Reply-To: <20090407135007.GA2386@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> (Josh Boyer's message of "Tue\, 7 Apr 2009 09\:50\:07 -0400") References: <1239098545.6319.70.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090407135007.GA2386@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: >>>>> "JB" == Josh Boyer writes: JB> It would seem no. It has a very confusing 'not sold for profit' JB> item. Note that Debian believes this is sufficiently free, because they have no requirement that software be redistributable for profit on its own, only as part of their distribution (as I understand it). See the thread at http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal at lists.debian.org/msg28746.html I honestly do not know what Fedora's position is on this, but it is possible to use the Bistream Vera license (which has a similar "don't sell it by itself" clause) as an example. It's a font, however, and that may make it special somehow. Note that this question of software that can't be sold by itself comes up more often than you'd think. - J< From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Apr 7 15:39:27 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:39:27 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] CDF license In-Reply-To: <1239098545.6319.70.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1239098545.6319.70.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <49DB73AF.2090907@redhat.com> On 04/07/2009 06:02 AM, Jussi Lehtola wrote: > Is the license acceptable for inclusion? No. It is poorly worded and non-free. Red Hat Legal concurs with that assessment. ~spot From loganjerry at gmail.com Thu Apr 9 16:09:31 2009 From: loganjerry at gmail.com (Jerry James) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:09:31 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] NIST "license" Message-ID: <870180fe0904090909s6d4e5efew3902a99baa92902e@mail.gmail.com> Re: the recent speech recognition thread on Fedora-devel, I am looking at packaging up a few tools from http://www.nist.gov/speech/tools/, SPHERE in particular. However, the distribution contains no mention of a license. A query about this was answered with a pointer to this page: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/disclaim.htm which says, "These World Wide Web pages are provided as a public service by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). With the exception of material marked as copyrighted, information presented on these pages is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." The SPHERE source distribution contains a directory, src/lib/sp, which does contain code with copyright and license statements. However, this is code that was written outside of NIST and appears to be released under a variety of open source licenses. I will do a thorough audit of that directory before proceeding. Assuming that audit turns up no problems, what do you think of NIST's statement above? Since the code they wrote contains no copyright statements, are they declaring it public domain? I can ask for more information if necessary, but I'd appreciate a hand with crafting the questions if so. I hope this doesn't turn into the conversation I had with a prominent computer scientist a couple of years ago. He distributes some excellent software with no clear license. We had a conversation that went something like this. Me: "Under what license are you distributing this software?" Him: "Argh! I hate it when people ask me that! I'm just doing research and making the results of my research available to the public!" Me: "Yes, but the public doesn't know what they are allowed to do with your software. That's what the license spells out." Him: "They can do whatever they want with it. That's why I put it on a web page!" Me: "Great, would you mind just writing that in a license file and including it with the software?" Him: "I haven't got time for this nonsense. If you find the software useful, then use it. If not, don't use it!" [Conversation then goes in circles for the next 5 minutes until me gives up.] -- Jerry James http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/ http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Apr 10 21:59:54 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:59:54 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] NIST "license" In-Reply-To: <870180fe0904090909s6d4e5efew3902a99baa92902e@mail.gmail.com> References: <870180fe0904090909s6d4e5efew3902a99baa92902e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49DFC15A.3010008@redhat.com> On 04/09/2009 12:09 PM, Jerry James wrote: > Re: the recent speech recognition thread on Fedora-devel, I am looking > at packaging up a few tools from http://www.nist.gov/speech/tools/, > SPHERE in particular. However, the distribution contains no mention > of a license. A query about this was answered with a pointer to this > page: > > http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/disclaim.htm > > which says, "These World Wide Web pages are provided as a public > service by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). > With the exception of material marked as copyrighted, information > presented on these pages is considered public information and may be > distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits > is requested." > > The SPHERE source distribution contains a directory, src/lib/sp, which > does contain code with copyright and license statements. However, > this is code that was written outside of NIST and appears to be > released under a variety of open source licenses. I will do a > thorough audit of that directory before proceeding. Assuming that > audit turns up no problems, what do you think of NIST's statement > above? Since the code they wrote contains no copyright statements, > are they declaring it public domain? I can ask for more information > if necessary, but I'd appreciate a hand with crafting the questions if > so. NIST's statement above seems to only apply to their "World Wide Web pages". They're not declaring it public domain either, they're granting explicit rights to distribute and copy. It is notably more complicated to put something in the Public Domain in the US, so it safe to assume that no code that you might come across is in the Public Domain. When in doubt, ask. (There are some notable cases where we accept that code is in the Public Domain, such as sqlite and SELinux, but they're corner cases.) Now, if they say that that "license" applies to all code offered on their website that they are the copyright holder, it would still not be acceptable in Fedora, because they did not give us the right to modify code. (They didn't disclaim warranty either, but that's just stupidity on their part.) I strongly suspect that this license does not apply to their copyrighted code, due to the way it is worded. ~spot P.S. Jerry, I almost didn't see your post because it got caught in the mailman spam trap. This mailing list is reasonably low-traffic, perhaps you should subscribe? :) From chkr at plauener.de Sat Apr 11 19:31:25 2009 From: chkr at plauener.de (Christian Krause) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:31:25 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] modified MIT license in GPLv3+ source Message-ID: <49E0F00D.4040404@plauener.de> Hi, I'm currently packaging the tool "pianobooster": https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494965 and I've discovered the following problem: The source (GPLv3+) contains 3 files ("rtmidi/*") which are licensed under a modified MIT license. In general this should be ok, but this license contains the statement that modifications must be sent back to the author. For the full license text from the source files see below. I've set the FE-LEGAL block for the review request (BZ #494965) Please can the legal team have a look at the problem (and hopefully remove the FE-LEGAL block)? ;-) If there's no problem, what would be the correct License tag in the spec file? GPLv3+ and MIT? Thanks! Best regards, Christian Here is the problematic license: RtMidi WWW site: http://music.mcgill.ca/~gary/rtmidi/ RtMidi: realtime MIDI i/o C++ classes Copyright (c) 2003-2009 Gary P. Scavone Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that they can be incorporated into the canonical version. 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 AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. From rdieter at math.unl.edu Sat Apr 11 22:51:37 2009 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:51:37 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: modified MIT license in GPLv3+ source References: <49E0F00D.4040404@plauener.de> Message-ID: Christian Krause wrote: > Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is > requested to send the modifications... It's not a requirement, but a request. Imo, is ok. -- Rex From loganjerry at gmail.com Mon Apr 13 17:08:36 2009 From: loganjerry at gmail.com (Jerry James) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:08:36 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] NIST "license" In-Reply-To: <49DFC15A.3010008@redhat.com> References: <870180fe0904090909s6d4e5efew3902a99baa92902e@mail.gmail.com> <49DFC15A.3010008@redhat.com> Message-ID: <870180fe0904131008l3f5d2bf7j34f004ef912bfa87@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > NIST's statement above seems to only apply to their "World Wide Web > pages". They're not declaring it public domain either, they're granting > explicit rights to distribute and copy. It is notably more complicated > to put something in the Public Domain in the US, so it safe to assume > that no code that you might come across is in the Public Domain. When in > doubt, ask. > (There are some notable cases where we accept that code is in the Public > Domain, such as sqlite and SELinux, but they're corner cases.) > > Now, if they say that that "license" applies to all code offered on > their website that they are the copyright holder, it would still not be > acceptable in Fedora, because they did not give us the right to modify > code. (They didn't disclaim warranty either, but that's just stupidity > on their part.) I strongly suspect that this license does not apply to > their copyrighted code, due to the way it is worded. Thanks, Tom. I'll assume that the first person I reached was clueless and try asking the question again. Or I may not bother. I've discovered that one of the outside files they filched comes from "shorten", an audio processing program with a "no commercial use" license. There are truly open source programs that do the same thing, so this is not necessarily fatal, but I'm not sure I've got the time to devote to recoding NIST's software. > P.S. Jerry, I almost didn't see your post because it got caught in the > mailman spam trap. This mailing list is reasonably low-traffic, perhaps > you should subscribe? :) Yeah, probably. I'm on so many mailing lists already, how much pain could one more cause me? :-) Hmmm, why doesn't this list appear on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate ? -- Jerry James http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/ From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Apr 13 17:18:52 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] NIST "license" In-Reply-To: <870180fe0904131008l3f5d2bf7j34f004ef912bfa87@mail.gmail.com> References: <870180fe0904090909s6d4e5efew3902a99baa92902e@mail.gmail.com> <49DFC15A.3010008@redhat.com> <870180fe0904131008l3f5d2bf7j34f004ef912bfa87@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49E373FC.6090802@redhat.com> On 04/13/2009 01:08 PM, Jerry James wrote: > Yeah, probably. I'm on so many mailing lists already, how much pain > could one more cause me? :-) > > Hmmm, why doesn't this list appear on > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate ? Dunno. It is there now. :) ~spot From goeran at uddeborg.se Tue Apr 14 19:53:51 2009 From: goeran at uddeborg.se (=?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6ran?= Uddeborg) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:53:51 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ProjectX Message-ID: <18916.59855.378452.505283@freddi.uddeborg> Would it be possible to package ProjectX in Fedora (http://project-x.sourceforge.net/)? It is a DVB demuxing tool. The license is GPLv2+, so that part is fine. I understand MPEG2 is a patented codec (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#DVD_Playback) but does that also affect a tool that just demultiplexes the stream? From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Apr 14 20:09:38 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:09:38 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ProjectX In-Reply-To: <18916.59855.378452.505283@freddi.uddeborg> References: <18916.59855.378452.505283@freddi.uddeborg> Message-ID: <49E4ED82.6090807@redhat.com> On 04/14/2009 03:53 PM, G?ran Uddeborg wrote: > Would it be possible to package ProjectX in Fedora > (http://project-x.sourceforge.net/)? It is a DVB demuxing tool. The > license is GPLv2+, so that part is fine. I understand MPEG2 is a > patented codec > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#DVD_Playback) but does > that also affect a tool that just demultiplexes the stream? We permit code that only does demuxing. It can't also encode/decode. If ProjectX meets those criteria, it should be okay. ~spot From ville.skytta at iki.fi Tue Apr 14 20:25:38 2009 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?iso-8859-1?q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:25:38 +0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ProjectX In-Reply-To: <49E4ED82.6090807@redhat.com> References: <18916.59855.378452.505283@freddi.uddeborg> <49E4ED82.6090807@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200904142325.39314.ville.skytta@iki.fi> On Tuesday 14 April 2009, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 04/14/2009 03:53 PM, G?ran Uddeborg wrote: > > Would it be possible to package ProjectX in Fedora > > (http://project-x.sourceforge.net/)? It is a DVB demuxing tool. The > > license is GPLv2+, so that part is fine. I understand MPEG2 is a > > patented codec > > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#DVD_Playback) but does > > that also affect a tool that just demultiplexes the stream? > > We permit code that only does demuxing. It can't also encode/decode. If > ProjectX meets those criteria, it should be okay. I think ProjectX does quite a bit more than just demuxes (attempts to repair streams etc). See also http://project-x.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/project-x/Project- X/ReadMe.txt?revision=1.22&view=markup 34 For a program compliant to the international standards ISO 11172 35 and ISO 13818 it is inevitable to use methods covered by patents 36 in various countries. The authors of this program disclaim any 37 liability for patent infringement caused by using, modifying or 38 redistributing this program. From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Apr 15 13:57:44 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:57:44 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ProjectX In-Reply-To: <200904142325.39314.ville.skytta@iki.fi> References: <18916.59855.378452.505283@freddi.uddeborg> <49E4ED82.6090807@redhat.com> <200904142325.39314.ville.skytta@iki.fi> Message-ID: <49E5E7D8.9040508@redhat.com> On 04/14/2009 04:25 PM, Ville Skytt? wrote: > I think ProjectX does quite a bit more than just demuxes (attempts to repair > streams etc). Then it isn't acceptable. Sorry. :/ ~spot From loganjerry at gmail.com Wed Apr 15 17:14:05 2009 From: loganjerry at gmail.com (Jerry James) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:14:05 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] NIST "license" In-Reply-To: <49E373FC.6090802@redhat.com> References: <870180fe0904090909s6d4e5efew3902a99baa92902e@mail.gmail.com> <49DFC15A.3010008@redhat.com> <870180fe0904131008l3f5d2bf7j34f004ef912bfa87@mail.gmail.com> <49E373FC.6090802@redhat.com> Message-ID: <870180fe0904151014w31986386o1f2db9e43b356824@mail.gmail.com> Here is the NIST license for another piece of their software, SCTK. It says that the software is public domain, but also includes an explicit disclaimer. Is that still "Public Domain" for spec file purposes? This software was developed at the National Institute of Standards and Technology by employees of the Federal Government in the course of their official duties. Pursuant to title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code this software is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain. SCTK is an experimental system. NIST assumes no responsibility whatsoever for its use by other parties, and makes no guarantees, expressed or implied, about its quality, reliability, or any other characteristic. We would appreciate acknowledgement if the software is used. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS." With regard to this software, NIST MAKES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY AS TO ANY MATTER WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Incidentally, there's yet another of those broken "AS IS" clauses here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style_with_legal_disclaimer_3 Regards, -- Jerry James http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/ From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Apr 15 18:07:07 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:07:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] NIST "license" In-Reply-To: <870180fe0904151014w31986386o1f2db9e43b356824@mail.gmail.com> References: <870180fe0904090909s6d4e5efew3902a99baa92902e@mail.gmail.com> <49DFC15A.3010008@redhat.com> <870180fe0904131008l3f5d2bf7j34f004ef912bfa87@mail.gmail.com> <49E373FC.6090802@redhat.com> <870180fe0904151014w31986386o1f2db9e43b356824@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49E6224B.3030703@redhat.com> On 04/15/2009 01:14 PM, Jerry James wrote: > Here is the NIST license for another piece of their software, SCTK. > It says that the software is public domain, but also includes an > explicit disclaimer. Is that still "Public Domain" for spec file > purposes? Yes. Works commissioned by employees of the US government are automatically public domain, so this is fine. > Incidentally, there's yet another of those broken "AS IS" clauses here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style_with_legal_disclaimer_3 There is nothing wrong with disclaiming warranty in a FOSS license, in fact, it is generally a pretty good idea. ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sun Apr 26 08:29:55 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:59:55 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware Message-ID: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> Hi Planet GNOME points to this bug now which is apparently non-redistributable firmware being included in Ubuntu for quite sometime. Just a heads up to make sure we aren't having the same problem. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-firmware/+bug/223212 Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Sun Apr 26 12:27:18 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:27:18 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> On 04/26/2009 04:29 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > Planet GNOME points to this bug now which is apparently > non-redistributable firmware being included in Ubuntu for quite > sometime. Just a heads up to make sure we aren't having the same problem. > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-firmware/+bug/223212 I'm 99% sure we're not carrying these firmware files. Ubuntu seems to be manually adding these firmware files (as recently as 04/02/09) to their packaging. If we find these non-redistributable firmware bits anywhere, we'd remove them. ~spot From krw at aribonifabbri.com.br Tue Apr 28 20:00:53 2009 From: krw at aribonifabbri.com.br (Kris Williamson (KRW)) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:00:53 -0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Trademark - FEDORA Message-ID: I am a trademark attorney working in Brazil. I have come across a company which has applied to register the trademark FEDORA in Brazil for services in Class 35. I want to know if this third party has permission to do so. Who do I contact regarding this? Kris Williamson Advocacia Pietro Ariboni Ariboni, Fabbri, Schmidt & Advogados Associados Rua Guararapes, 1909 -10? andar Brooklin Novo S?o Paulo - SP Tel: (11) 5502-1222 Fax (11) 5505-3306 E-mail: krw at aribonifabbri.com.br aribonifabbri at ariboni.com.br -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pchestek at redhat.com Tue Apr 28 20:22:42 2009 From: pchestek at redhat.com (Pamela Chestek) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:22:42 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: [Fedora-legal-list] Trademark - FEDORA] Message-ID: <49F76592.2070702@redhat.com> I'll handle. Pam -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Trademark - FEDORA Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:00:53 -0300 From: Kris Williamson (KRW) To: I am a trademark attorney working in Brazil. I have come across a company which has applied to register the trademark FEDORA in Brazil for services in Class 35. I want to know if this third party has permission to do so. Who do I contact regarding this? Kris Williamson Advocacia Pietro Ariboni Ariboni, Fabbri, Schmidt & Advogados Associados Rua Guararapes, 1909 -10? andar Brooklin Novo S?o Paulo - SP Tel: (11) 5502-1222 Fax (11) 5505-3306 E-mail: krw at aribonifabbri.com.br aribonifabbri at ariboni.com.br -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part URL: From aoliva at redhat.com Wed Apr 29 07:04:03 2009 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 04:04:03 -0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> (Tom Callaway's message of "Sun\, 26 Apr 2009 08\:27\:18 -0400") References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Apr 26, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > If we find these non-redistributable firmware bits anywhere, we'd remove > them. What if one piece of firmware is licensed under: * This file contains firmware data derived from proprietary unpublished * source code, [...] * * Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware data * in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright notice is * accompanying it. and another piece of code, copyrighted by the same party, says: * [...] this software is licensed to you * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 [...] * * Notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances may you combine this * software in any way with any other $PARTY software provided under a * license other than the GPL, without $PARTY's express prior written * consent. Which of the two should be taken out so that the other can be redistributable? Perhaps the latter, given that it's a driver under a license that's not even compatible with GPLv2? -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Apr 29 12:13:27 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:13:27 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> On 04/29/2009 03:04 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > * [...] this software is licensed to you > * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 [...] > * > * Notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances may you combine this > * software in any way with any other $PARTY software provided under a > * license other than the GPL, without $PARTY's express prior written > * consent. > > Which of the two should be taken out so that the other can be > redistributable? Perhaps the latter, given that it's a driver under a > license that's not even compatible with GPLv2? It depends on whether you consider firmware as software, and currently, in Fedora, we do not. Please don't start this up again, I have minimal patience for the same tired arguments again and again. ~spot From aoliva at redhat.com Wed Apr 29 17:19:44 2009 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:19:44 -0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> (Tom Callaway's message of "Wed\, 29 Apr 2009 08\:13\:27 -0400") References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Apr 29, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > On 04/29/2009 03:04 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Which of the two should be taken out so that the other can be >> redistributable? Perhaps the latter, given that it's a driver under a >> license that's not even compatible with GPLv2? > It depends on whether you consider firmware as software, and currently, > in Fedora, we do not. You can't change what a copyright holder meant in its license by twisting the meanings of the words it chose to fit what you want them to mean. That's not how copyright works. The copyright holder didn't permit the combination of the second piece of code (which, being driver code rather than firmware, is software even under your standards) with the other ?derived from proprietary unpublished source code? (does anyone use ?source code? for anything other than software, or is this enough of a give-away?) > Please don't start this up again, I have minimal patience for the same > tired arguments again and again. That you're trying to turn this into the same old argument doesn't make it so. It's a different issue. This has nothing to do with mere aggregation of firmware here, or with whether firmware is software or not. This is about (i) combining two pieces of works of authorship in a way that doesn't comply with the licenses provided by the copyright holder, none of which are under the GPL, and (ii) combining *driver* (rather than firmware) code that's under GPL-incompatible terms with the GPLed code in the rest of the kernel. -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Apr 29 17:42:38 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:42:38 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49F8918E.40207@redhat.com> On 04/29/2009 01:19 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > The copyright holder didn't permit the combination of the second piece > of code (which, being driver code rather than firmware, is software even > under your standards) with the other ?derived from proprietary > unpublished source code? Given that the copyright holder on BOTH works is the same, unless you have it in writing from the copyright holder that they do not permit this combination, I don't draw the same conclusion as you. ~spot From aoliva at redhat.com Wed Apr 29 19:06:53 2009 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:06:53 -0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: <49F8918E.40207@redhat.com> (Tom Callaway's message of "Wed\, 29 Apr 2009 13\:42\:38 -0400") References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> <49F8918E.40207@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Apr 29, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > On 04/29/2009 01:19 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> The copyright holder didn't permit the combination of the second piece >> of code (which, being driver code rather than firmware, is software even >> under your standards) with the other ?derived from proprietary >> unpublished source code? > Given that the copyright holder on BOTH works is the same, unless you > have it in writing from the copyright holder that they do not permit > this combination, I don't draw the same conclusion as you. I don't understand your reasoning. Say I create two works A and B. I publish A under a permissive license. I publish B under a license that prohibits its combination with A. Per your reasoning, you're entitled to publish a combination of A and B. What gives you the idea that you are? -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Apr 29 19:47:04 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:47:04 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> <49F8918E.40207@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49F8AEB8.9040401@redhat.com> On 04/29/2009 03:06 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Say I create two works A and B. > > I publish A under a permissive license. > > I publish B under a license that prohibits its combination with A. > > Per your reasoning, you're entitled to publish a combination of A and B. If you create work A that is dependent on work B (which you also created), and there is a seeming license incompatibility between A and B, I would generally assume this is not intentional and reach out to you for clarification. Keep in mind that we're still talking hypotheticals here. If you've got a specific case, lets hear it. ~spot From aoliva at redhat.com Wed Apr 29 21:29:01 2009 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:29:01 -0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: <49F8AEB8.9040401@redhat.com> (Tom Callaway's message of "Wed\, 29 Apr 2009 15\:47\:04 -0400") References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> <49F8918E.40207@redhat.com> <49F8AEB8.9040401@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Apr 29, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > On 04/29/2009 03:06 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> Say I create two works A and B. >> >> I publish A under a permissive license. >> >> I publish B under a license that prohibits its combination with A. >> >> Per your reasoning, you're entitled to publish a combination of A and B. > If you create work A that is dependent on work B (which you also > created) False assumption. We're talking about copyright notices in two separate drivers, one unrelated with the other. Even if the drivers were somehow related, I'm pretty sure the driver B is not derived from the firmware in driver A. The one situation in which there are derived works is that the driver B is derived from Linux, but then it sets forth an additional restriction, which is incompatible with the GPL that governs the creation and distribution of derived works. > Keep in mind that we're still talking hypotheticals here. No, we're not. You think I made up those license snippets? I'm talking about two specific network interface driversf grep for the license notices I posted to find them in the Linux 2.6.29 source tree. (The firmware in driver A moved into firmware/ in 2.6.30-pre, but I haven't checked how or even whether the license notices were adjusted) -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Apr 29 22:09:19 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:09:19 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> <49F8918E.40207@redhat.com> <49F8AEB8.9040401@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49F8D00F.40709@redhat.com> On 04/29/2009 05:29 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > grep for the license notices I posted to find them in the Linux 2.6.29 > source tree. (The firmware in driver A moved into firmware/ in > 2.6.30-pre, but I haven't checked how or even whether the license > notices were adjusted) Look. I'm a patient guy, really, I am. Ask my wife. That said, I don't have much patience for the "go find the license problem I've cleverly and vaguely pointed out" game. Be specific, be concise, or be ignored. ~spot From aoliva at redhat.com Thu Apr 30 02:26:24 2009 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:26:24 -0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: <49F8D00F.40709@redhat.com> (Tom Callaway's message of "Wed\, 29 Apr 2009 18\:09\:19 -0400") References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> <49F8918E.40207@redhat.com> <49F8AEB8.9040401@redhat.com> <49F8D00F.40709@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Apr 29, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > On 04/29/2009 05:29 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> grep for the license notices I posted to find them in the Linux 2.6.29 >> source tree. (The firmware in driver A moved into firmware/ in >> 2.6.30-pre, but I haven't checked how or even whether the license >> notices were adjusted) > That said, I don't have much patience for the "go find the license > problem I've cleverly and vaguely pointed out" game. Be specific, be > concise, or be ignored. Given all the opinions you volunteered as to this problem, it was just reasonable for me to assume that you were (i) as aware of the issue as Red Hat legal is, and (ii) misguided as to its seriousness, for people who take legal issues seriously don't go about making guesses and dismissing issues before knowing facts. Only now has it become clear that you're just making wild guesses, to try to deflect the issue. Wild guesses that, rather than filling in irrelevant blanks, conflict directly with the specific information I offered. I'm ok with your not wanting my help, but do yourself a favor and, before sticking your foot in your mouth again, have a look at bnx2_fw* and bnx2x_link* in linux-2.6.2*/drivers/net, and talk to legal. I recommend contacting Richard Fontana, he was at Libre Planet where I first spoke about this issue, so he might even be aware of it already. Good luck, -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Apr 30 02:55:35 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> <49F8918E.40207@redhat.com> <49F8AEB8.9040401@redhat.com> <49F8D00F.40709@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49F91327.1070306@redhat.com> On 04/29/2009 10:26 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Given all the opinions you volunteered as to this problem, it was just > reasonable for me to assume that you were (i) as aware of the issue as > Red Hat legal is, and (ii) misguided as to its seriousness, for people > who take legal issues seriously don't go about making guesses and > dismissing issues before knowing facts. My psychic powers not withstanding, you really shouldn't make assumptions. Something about an ass, you, and me... I was honestly under the impression you were pitching a hypothetical scenario, which is why the "copyright holder" wasn't mentioned explicitly, and you didn't point out specific files. As to the upstream Linux kernel having firmware, yes, it does. However, rather than hacking it to pieces in Fedora, we'd much prefer to see such cleanup efforts done upstream. But you knew that already, yet you're content to continue beating this long dead horse wherever possible. I'm really done with it now. ~spot From aoliva at redhat.com Thu Apr 30 05:09:18 2009 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:09:18 -0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: <49F91327.1070306@redhat.com> (Tom Callaway's message of "Wed\, 29 Apr 2009 22\:55\:35 -0400") References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> <49F8918E.40207@redhat.com> <49F8AEB8.9040401@redhat.com> <49F8D00F.40709@redhat.com> <49F91327.1070306@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Apr 29, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > My psychic powers not withstanding, you really shouldn't make > assumptions. As I wrote, I made them based on your opinions. I honestly didn't expect you to go about making strong assertions without having the faintest clue as to what you were discussing. > I was honestly under the impression you were pitching a hypothetical > scenario, Not enough of a clue that I wrote: What if one piece of firmware is licensed under: (note the present tense *is*, not *was*) and another piece of code, copyrighted by the same party, says: Which of the two should be taken out so that the other can be redistributable? Perhaps the latter, given that it's a driver under a license that's not even compatible with GPLv2? And then, why would I add ?[...]? to indicate omission of portions from a hypothetical license? > As to the upstream Linux kernel having firmware, yes, it does. What I don't get is why you keep returning to this point. The issue is not about firmware. There are two issues here: 1. combining GPLed Linux code with *driver* (!= firmware) code derived from GPLed code that adds incompatible restrictions => GPL violation, enforceable by *any* Linux copyright holder 2. combining the aforementioned code with code that is explicitly excluded by the GPL-incompatible restriction => copyright infringement enforceable by the very party who set the trap While you keep focusing on the firmware, these two points that have to do with a driver, not with firmware, fly way over the top of your head. It is sad that Linux upstream developers are so sloppy with licenses, but unfortunately not all of the problems they bring about revolve around firmware. I honestly wish they weren't so sloppy, it would make for far less legal risk for all of us. Please take your head out of the sand. If you are the party responsible for looking after this kind of legal problem in Fedora, it's not responsible to declare you're done with this issue just because you don't like another unrelated issue I brought up before, and you pretend it's the same. Now, you don't have to report anything back to the list or to myself, but please don't fail to do your job just because you can't stand me. It's an important job, and the Fedora community counts on you to do it. Thanks, -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Apr 30 07:38:38 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:08:38 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Another list of potential issues Message-ID: <49F9557E.8070900@fedoraproject.org> Hi I know there are differences in legal policies but there might be common problems as well. http://www.mail-archive.com/gnewsense-dev at nongnu.org/msg00125.html Rahul From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Apr 30 12:57:08 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> <49F8918E.40207@redhat.com> <49F8AEB8.9040401@redhat.com> <49F8D00F.40709@redhat.com> <49F91327.1070306@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49F9A024.6030900@redhat.com> On 04/30/2009 01:09 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Not enough of a clue that I wrote: > > What if one piece of firmware is licensed under: For what it is worth, when you begin a sentence in English with: "What if...", it is almost always a hypothetical scenario. Had you written: "There is a case in the Linux 2.6.29rc3 kernel (drivers/foo/filename.c) where one piece of firmware is licensed under:" It would have been much clearer. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Apr 30 13:08:28 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:08:28 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Linux firmware In-Reply-To: References: <49F41B83.2060904@fedoraproject.org> <49F45326.4080206@redhat.com> <49F84467.1020206@redhat.com> <49F8918E.40207@redhat.com> <49F8AEB8.9040401@redhat.com> <49F8D00F.40709@redhat.com> <49F91327.1070306@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49F9A2CC.4010808@redhat.com> On 04/30/2009 01:09 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Now, you don't have to report anything back to the list or to myself, > but please don't fail to do your job just because you can't stand me. > It's an important job, and the Fedora community counts on you to do it. As to this specific point, separated out specifically, I will repeat myself, perhaps a bit more clearly: Please point out any _specific_ cases of license issues in Fedora packages to me, bugzilla (FE-Legal), or this list, and I will look into them. When you do so, it greatly aids me when you are able to: * Specifically point out the precise issue * Note the affected files and package It took you several emails to accomplish this, and I just don't have enough time to chase "ghost" issues where your personal stance on licensing differs from Fedora's. I have a high degree of confidence at this point that you understand the definitions of Fedora licensing policies. When information is presented calmly, clearly, and without rhetoric, I continue to look into it. To assert that I am either failing, or at risk of failing in that task is rather insulting, especially given a lack of evidence in that area. It is also worth considering that the Linux kernel, like X.org and texlive, is a rather special case. We cannot simply remove the entire package without crippling the Fedora distributions, nor is it a place where we can effectively "scalpel" out licensing issues (I know that you disagree on this latter point, but for the purposes of rational discussion, please simply accept that Fedora is not interested in taking such action at this point in time). Our best recourse is to work with the upstream to address these issues. Progress continues to be made in this area. Keep in mind that it took us YEARS to get X.org to a state where we were no longer tangled up with non-free licenses. I tracked that issue personally for 5 years, Debian tracked it for even longer than that. It will likely take me months to finish simply auditing texlive. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Apr 30 13:37:05 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:37:05 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Another list of potential issues In-Reply-To: <49F9557E.8070900@fedoraproject.org> References: <49F9557E.8070900@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <49F9A981.4030307@redhat.com> On 04/30/2009 03:38 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > I know there are differences in legal policies but there might be common > problems as well. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/gnewsense-dev at nongnu.org/msg00125.html So, looking at that list: * afio: Yeah, we know about this one. Not in Fedora, caught it on review. * texlive-base, texlive-latex-base: Yes, we're aware of it, auditing it is a nightmare, but I plan to revisit it in earnest after Fedora 11. * libsnmp-base: This is net-snmp (In Lenny, this is 5.4.1, in Rawhide, we're at 5.4.2.1). This is about the MIB files derived from IETF RFCs. The license for IETF RFC docs says: This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. As the MIBs are clearly derivative works, they are available as derivative works that "assist" in the implementation of the various RFCs, without restriction of any kind. Unfortunately, the paragraph is confusingly worded, as they almost certainly mean for "the document" to mean the original RFC from which the work is derived. In addition, these MIB files are arguably in a gray area between Documentation, Code, and Content. I'm going to interpret them as Content, since they serve simply as reinterpretations of the published standard. It would be nice for the IETF to fix this, but as no obvious "code" is under these terms, it is less of a problem. * libsmi: Same issue as libsnmp. * pike: Not in Fedora. * gkrell-snmp: I don't think this is in Fedora, but it is resolved with upstream adding the OpenSSL exception clause in 1.1. ~spot From tibbs at math.uh.edu Thu Apr 30 14:26:33 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:26:33 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Another list of potential issues In-Reply-To: <49F9A981.4030307@redhat.com> (Tom Callaway's message of "Thu\, 30 Apr 2009 09\:37\:05 -0400") References: <49F9557E.8070900@fedoraproject.org> <49F9A981.4030307@redhat.com> Message-ID: >>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway writes: TC> pike: Not in Fedora. FYI, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459579 If there's an issue, could you add a comment there? - J< From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Apr 30 14:38:55 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:38:55 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Another list of potential issues In-Reply-To: References: <49F9557E.8070900@fedoraproject.org> <49F9A981.4030307@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49F9B7FF.6040104@redhat.com> On 04/30/2009 10:26 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway writes: > > TC> pike: Not in Fedora. > > FYI, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459579 > > If there's an issue, could you add a comment there? No issue, the concern from GNUsense is that pike had a bundled copy of "Nettle", which includes one of the IETF RFC documents as a .txt file. I say had, because as of Nettle 1.15 and pike 7.8, the licensing issue on that file has been resolved. Assuming that ticket goes to pike 7.8 as requested, there should not be any issue. ~spot