From bochecha at fedoraproject.org Sun Aug 2 19:00:04 2009 From: bochecha at fedoraproject.org (Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 21:00:04 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Licensing issue in OpenLayers package (already in Fedora) Message-ID: <2d319b780908021200y53a8c875vc61dee845701d49a@mail.gmail.com> Hi, The OpenLayers package (already in Fedora, owned by Cristian in CC and of which I'm a co-maintainer) bundles a JavaScript minimizer called jsmin [1]. I know this is bad practice to have a tool bundled like this, and I wanted to remove it from the source RPM and make it use a system version of jsmin that would be installed in its own package. However, I saw that jsmin had already been submitted to Fedora and was refused because the license specifies that ? The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. ? [2] I discussed it with the OpenLayers devs (see attached IRC log) and it seems we have 2 possibilities. 1. The jsmin.py script was rewritten from scratch to mimic the behavior of the C original version. It currently contains the following license header: ==== # This code is original from jsmin by Douglas Crockford, it was translated to # Python by Baruch Even. The original code had the following copyright and # license. # # /* jsmin.c # 2007-01-08 # # Copyright (c) 2002 Douglas Crockford (www.crockford.com) # # 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. # # The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. # # 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. # */ ==== The part between JavaScript comments is the original problematic license (starts with ? /* ? and ends with ? */ ?). My question is, as this seems to be a ? clean room implementation ?, could it have a different license than the original jsmin ? This would make the python version suitable for Fedora (correct me if I'm wrong) and that would allow me to build OpenLayers using it. 2. The second possibility is to simply build OpenLayers without jsmin. This would however result in a much bigger JavaScript file, leading to worse performances. That's a solution I'd rather avoid, but if this is the only possibility, I'll do it. Best regards, [1] http://www.crockford.com/javascript/jsmin.html [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455507 ---------- Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: the_jsmin_OpenLayers_issue.log Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2795 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dchen at redhat.com Mon Aug 3 00:39:17 2009 From: dchen at redhat.com (Ding Yi Chen) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:39:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License for programs and data that can only be used in GPL/LGPL/BSD/PD applications? Message-ID: <488816492.341941249259957462.JavaMail.root@zmail04.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Hi, I am interested in importing voice data of gcin (Yet another Chinese input system) to Fedora. However, the README of the voice data states (translated to English): This data is recorded by sprec. This voice data can only be used in GPL, LGPL, BSD and Public Domain software. Data files converted/extended from this voice data should also follow this term. What license should we put for this kind of software/data? Regards, -- Ding-Yi Chen Software Engineer Internationalization Group Red Hat, Inc. Looking to carve out IT costs? www.apac.redhat.com/promo/carveoutcosts/ From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Aug 5 04:12:29 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:12:29 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License for programs and data that can only be used in GPL/LGPL/BSD/PD applications? In-Reply-To: <488816492.341941249259957462.JavaMail.root@zmail04.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <488816492.341941249259957462.JavaMail.root@zmail04.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A7906AD.7070106@redhat.com> On 08/02/2009 08:39 PM, Ding Yi Chen wrote: > Hi, > I am interested in importing voice data of gcin (Yet another Chinese input system) to Fedora. > However, the README of the voice data states (translated to English): > > This data is recorded by sprec. This voice data can only be used in > GPL, LGPL, BSD and Public Domain software. > Data files converted/extended from this voice data should also follow this term. > > What license should we put for this kind of software/data? That license is not enough for us to consider it acceptable for Fedora. If it is software, it is definitely not free. If it is content, it does not give us permission to freely redistribute it. Can you ask the upstream copyright holder for that voice data if they will do one of the following: * License it under the GPL or LGPL. (I think this will accomplish their intent in a much cleaner way) * License it under one of our listed Free Software Licenses here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses If neither of those are feasible, try: * License it under one of our approved content licenses: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses_3 If that is still not acceptable to them, find out if they will give everyone permission to freely redistribute these files without restriction. That's the bare minimum for content in Fedora. ~spot From bochecha at fedoraproject.org Sat Aug 8 17:20:07 2009 From: bochecha at fedoraproject.org (Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 19:20:07 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Licensing issue in OpenLayers package (already in Fedora) In-Reply-To: <2d319b780908021200y53a8c875vc61dee845701d49a@mail.gmail.com> References: <2d319b780908021200y53a8c875vc61dee845701d49a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d319b780908081020u55a2d42eg8a1fa6f8ed8df9a2@mail.gmail.com> Hi, On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 21:00, Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) wrote: > Hi, > > The OpenLayers package (already in Fedora, owned by Cristian in CC and > of which I'm a co-maintainer) bundles a JavaScript minimizer called > jsmin [1]. I know this is bad practice to have a tool bundled like > this, and I wanted to remove it from the source RPM and make it use a > system version of jsmin that would be installed in its own package. > > However, I saw that jsmin had already been submitted to Fedora and was > refused because the license specifies that ? The Software shall be > used for Good, not Evil. ? [2] > > I discussed it with the OpenLayers devs (see attached IRC log) and it > seems we have 2 possibilities. > > 1. The jsmin.py script was rewritten from scratch to mimic the > behavior of the C original version. It currently contains the > following license header: [snip] > My question is, as this seems to be a ? clean room implementation ?, > could it have a different license than the original jsmin ? This would > make the python version suitable for Fedora (correct me if I'm wrong) > and that would allow me to build OpenLayers using it. Any thoughts on this solution? Is that legally possible? If so, I'll try to contact the writer of the Python implementation to see if he is willing to relicense his script. > 2. The second possibility is to simply build OpenLayers without jsmin. > This would however result in a much bigger JavaScript file, leading to > worse performances. > > That's a solution I'd rather avoid, but if this is the only > possibility, I'll do it. > > Best regards, > > > [1] http://www.crockford.com/javascript/jsmin.html > [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455507 ---------- Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) From dchen at redhat.com Mon Aug 10 05:41:09 2009 From: dchen at redhat.com (Ding-Yi Chen) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:41:09 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Does input method table count as software? Message-ID: <1249882869.5717.42.camel@dhcp-0-207.bne.redhat.com> Hi, I am packing Dayi3, a Chinese input method for IBus. The license of the table (as shown in http://code.google.com/p/openvanilla/source/browse/trunk/Modules/SharedData/dayi3.cin ) states: This table is authorized by Taiyi (http://www.dayi.com) for free download and use. Users may not distribute the modified character encoding rules, but can change the table format for other input method and platform. Input method tables are data tables that at least contain two fields: "input code" and corresponding character. These tables are not executable, and require input method engine such as ibus-table or scim-table to load them. I am not sure whether input method table is a software or a content. If it is a software, what's the license? If it is a content, is CC-BY-ND appropriate? Regards, -- Ding-Yi Chen Software Engineer Internationalization Group Red Hat, Inc. Looking to carve out IT costs? www.apac.redhat.com/promo/carveoutcosts/ From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Aug 10 12:38:27 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:38:27 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Does input method table count as software? In-Reply-To: <1249882869.5717.42.camel@dhcp-0-207.bne.redhat.com> References: <1249882869.5717.42.camel@dhcp-0-207.bne.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A8014C3.30709@redhat.com> On 08/10/2009 01:41 AM, Ding-Yi Chen wrote: > Hi, > > I am packing Dayi3, a Chinese input method for IBus. > > The license of the table (as shown in > http://code.google.com/p/openvanilla/source/browse/trunk/Modules/SharedData/dayi3.cin ) > > states: > > This table is authorized by Taiyi (http://www.dayi.com) for free > download and use. > > Users may not distribute the modified character encoding rules, > but can change the table format for other input method and platform. Even if it was determined to be content, they explicitly do not give permission for us to redistribute (they actually say that we don't have permission to distribute the modified rules, but they never say that we do have permission to distribute the unmodified rules). That license is not acceptable for Fedora. ~spot From nicu_fedora at nicubunu.ro Mon Aug 10 13:39:50 2009 From: nicu_fedora at nicubunu.ro (Nicu Buculei) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:39:50 +0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License for wallpapers in old Fedora releases In-Reply-To: <4A733FF7.20807@redhat.com> References: <4A69D306.4030304@nicubunu.ro> <4A733FF7.20807@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A802326.8030405@nicubunu.ro> On 07/31/2009 10:03 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 07/24/2009 11:28 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote: >> At the Design-Team we figured it would be handy to provide (perhaps in a >> gallery) wallpapers from the old releases, so the users who liked them >> can have a handy access at the images. It is also useful to have when >> documenting our history. > > So, this means there are two options remaining: > > 1. We can package up these backgrounds with a license identical to that > of the fedora-logos package (basically, right to use, copy, and > redistribute, but not modify, with some extra conditions around the > Fedora marks). I don't like this option, as it would require us to split in "before" and "after" F7, make difficult in sharing the images on web and so on. I like it clear and simple. > 2. We could take the images and remove the Fedora trademarks from them > and release them under a Creative Commons license. > > Or, we could do both. From my point of view this is a better option but definitely harder, we don't have *source* packages for the artwork. M?ir?n inherited a drive and will search trough it, there is hope she will find some. However, even if we find the sources from all, the FC6 background[1] without all "8"s and "f"s may remain to bare, it is a particular case, the most reliant on the logo (but from informal stats, an all-time favorite) [1] http://mso.fedorapeople.org/wallpapers/.old-wallpapers/%5BFC6%5Ddefault-5_4.jpg -- nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com/ From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Aug 10 15:06:43 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:06:43 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License for wallpapers in old Fedora releases In-Reply-To: <4A802326.8030405@nicubunu.ro> References: <4A69D306.4030304@nicubunu.ro> <4A733FF7.20807@redhat.com> <4A802326.8030405@nicubunu.ro> Message-ID: <4A803783.3090106@redhat.com> On 08/10/2009 09:39 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote: > On 07/31/2009 10:03 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >> On 07/24/2009 11:28 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote: >>> At the Design-Team we figured it would be handy to provide (perhaps in a >>> gallery) wallpapers from the old releases, so the users who liked them >>> can have a handy access at the images. It is also useful to have when >>> documenting our history. >> >> So, this means there are two options remaining: >> >> 1. We can package up these backgrounds with a license identical to that >> of the fedora-logos package (basically, right to use, copy, and >> redistribute, but not modify, with some extra conditions around the >> Fedora marks). > > I don't like this option, as it would require us to split in "before" > and "after" F7, make difficult in sharing the images on web and so on. I > like it clear and simple. > >> 2. We could take the images and remove the Fedora trademarks from them >> and release them under a Creative Commons license. >> >> Or, we could do both. > > From my point of view this is a better option but definitely harder, we > don't have *source* packages for the artwork. M?ir?n inherited a drive > and will search trough it, there is hope she will find some. > > However, even if we find the sources from all, the FC6 background[1] > without all "8"s and "f"s may remain to bare, it is a particular case, > the most reliant on the logo (but from informal stats, an all-time > favorite) Again, I think we can do both here, so people who want something to modify have an option and those who simply want to keep using one of those old images as a background can do so. ~spot From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Thu Aug 13 15:43:04 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4A4CD8FA.5070805@redhat.com> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A4CD8FA.5070805@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4a843488.gW5Kh3bwQGSjHVd2%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Mr. Callaway, in a previous mail you did already admit that you are not a lawyer. In your last mail you verified that you do not understand that background of the case and that you did not ask a lawyer for help. I don't know your position in Redhat, but as long as you do net get informed, it seems that you are the wrong person to talk to. Would you please be so kind to direct the discussion to the right people? You last mail contains close to no valid claim, let me comment your claims anyhow in hope that it helps you to begin to understand the problem. "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > You seem to have several concerns here. I will again attempt, for the > sake of clarity, to separate them and address them individually. > > I) The software "cdrkit" is full of well known bugs, and missing key > features. > > This point may or may not be correct, however, the presence of bugs and > the absence of features do not cause any legal concerns, short of > possible warranty issues, but those are thoroughly disclaimed by the > license (GPLv2) on cdrkit: Here you seem to missunderstand the OSS community. Redhat is a OSS redistributor. OSS redistributors depend on the work of OSS authors and thus should collaborate with them. Redhat also has customers and customers don't like to be forced by their distributor to use defective software when they know that there is also software without known bugs. It seems that you still did not yet read: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html as it lists some of the bugs and missing features in the fork. Given the fact that redhat installations default to a UTF-8 based locale, it seems to be extremely unwise to distribute a fork that does not correctly support UTF-8 while the original software has no problem with UTF-8 locales. Is this a result of the unawareness of an US citizen that is only used to use 7 bit US-ASCII? > II) "...many Linux users have become upset from the results of a > completely unneeded conflict initiated by the non-cooperative > "downstream" package maintainer." > > There are 11 open Fedora bugs against cdrkit. None of them reflect this > claim. Nevertheless, even if it was true, it does not reflect a legal or > licensing concern. I don't care about the numbers you give me, I however care about reality and if you sum up all unfixed bugs from all Linux distributors that distribute cdrkit, I see a total of more than 100 unfixed bugs. You should also look at the bugs for cdrkit in redhat, suse, debian, ubuntu and mandriva and you of course also need to check the bug lists for brasero on these distributions. It is most unlikely that the bugs listed there do not apply to redhat. > III) There are no licensing incompatibilities in the current "cdrtools" > software. > > This is patently false, and it was the primary reason why Red Hat/Fedora > no longer include the "cdrtools" software. "cdrtools" bundles and > depends upon GPL licensed software components, while the code codebase > of "cdrtools" is under the CDDL license. The CDDL has been reviewed by > multiple organizations, including the FSF and Red Hat Legal, and they > agree in the assessment that dependent combinations of CDDL and GPL code > result in an incompatible work. In addition, there is ample > documentation that this was the intention of the CDDL license authors > (Sun), to prevent code sharing/compatibility with the Linux kernel. Your claim is obviously false and I mentioned already that the Sun legal departement did a full legal review on cdrtools and could not find any license or legal problem in the original cdrtools. Your claim that the CDDL was designed to be incompatible with the GPL is a fairytale that is spread by people that like to harm OSS collaboration. Simon Phipps did confirm that this is not true and you should believe in what the official Sun OSS Evangelist says. Regarding your claims about the FSF: the FSF did not review cdrtools and the FSF is even completely irrelevant for this case. The FSF does not own any rights on cdrtools and the FSF does not distribute the original software. With respect to the original cdrtools software, the FSF is no more than an uninvolved third party. BTW: With respect to derived work from cdrtools, the FSF is a Copyright violator as the FSF publishes vcdimager and as vcdimager claims that all code is under GPL but the Reed Solomon coder implementation in vcdimager is based on code that intentionally never has been published under GPL. You can check this with the Author of the Code Heiko Ei?feldt. > I personally spoke to Simon Phipps on this subject, and he feels that it > may be possible to avoid the CDDL/GPL license compatibility concerns by > using the Sun Studio toolchain rather than GCC. In discussing this > possibility with Red Hat Legal, we disagree with Simon's assessments, so > even if Fedora/Red Hat included the Sun Studio toolchain (we do not > currently do so), we do not agree that its use resolves the licensing > concerns here. Let me asume that you do not _intentionally_ spread FUD.... .... you then at least confirm that you did miss everything that is important for our case. It should be obvious that you cannot use a different GPL interpretation depending on which project you are talking about. Iff redhat believes in the strange claims from Eduard Bloch, then it should be obvious that you would need to apply his claim to all software redhat distributes. This would make it impossible to distribute redhat and this would in addition make the GPL a clearly non-free license. Note that the FSF insists that the GPL has to interpreted in a way that would make it compatible to the OSS definition at: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Using SunStudio to compile your code could help to avoid some of the problems you only have if you believe in the claims from Eduard Bloch as SunStudio may help to avoid having code from the GNU libc inside the binaries that have been created from GPLd sources, even in case of dynamic linking. In short, this assumption would force you to convert your master libc source to GPL and in return forbid you to distribute any X based GUI binaries. If you don't understand this, ask your lawyers or read the GPL explanation from Lawrence Rosen at: http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf > IV) Some of the changes in "cdrkit" introduced Copyright law violations > and even GPL violations. > > To date, you have never provided anyone with any evidence of specific > examples of code in "cdrkit" which violates Copyright law or the terms > of the GPL. In our previous private discussions, I repeatedly requested > specific examples, but you were entirely unable or unwilling to present > these. Therefore, I am forced to assume that they do not exist. As mentioned before, the facts have been presented to the people who are responsible for the Copyright violation. I provided the information to the Debian BTS and some people at Debian preferred to hide the related bug entry instead of discussing it. These people reject to fix the legal problems they introduced and as the fork is full of bugs, it is not apropritate to put any effort in the illegal fork. I am not willing to give the bug id to a public mailing list as the thread is full of personal insults. I am however willing to discuss things in private communication. The easy fix for your problem is to start distributing the legal original software instead of the illegal fork. I am willing to discuss with you a path that leads within some time in the near future, to redhat distributing again the legal original software instead of the illegal fork. > **** > So, in summary, you have failed to raise any valid concerns about Red > Hat/Fedora's inclusion of "cdrkit". In addition, the situation which > prevents Red Hat/Fedora from including "cdrtools" remains unchanged. In Summary, you did not ask a real informed lawyer. If you don't like to be seen as a OSS hostile person, you should stop spreading FUD on the original software and if you really believe that there is a problem I would of course be happy to discuss your arguments. Up to now, you unfortunately did not send any new arguments, the old ones have already been refuted. You currently really have a legal problem that you need to fix. I recommend you to do this in a gentlemen like way - so please present facts if you see things different to me. In my opinion, in the opinion of my lawyer and in the opinion of the Sun legal department there is no need to dual license cdrtools as there is no legal problem in cdrtools. Note that the copyright violation in the fork was introduced by Germans in Germany on code that was written by Germans in Germany. You are distributing cdrkit in Germany so it is obvious that you need to read the German Copyright law at: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/index.html As mentioned several times already, I recommend you to consult a lawyer in order to get help to understand your situation. I am OSS oriented, so I am interested in fostering OSS against attacks and I hope that you finally are OSS oriented too. Best regards J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Aug 13 16:49:57 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:49:57 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4a843488.gW5Kh3bwQGSjHVd2%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A4CD8FA.5070805@redhat.com> <4a843488.gW5Kh3bwQGSjHVd2%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4A844435.4020409@redhat.com> On 08/13/2009 11:43 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Mr. Callaway, > > in a previous mail you did already admit that you are not a lawyer. In your > last mail you verified that you do not understand that background of the case > and that you did not ask a lawyer for help. Please do not feed the troll. Both Red Hat Legal and Fedora Legal consider this matter a non-issue, and Joerg's response makes it abundantly clear that further discussion of his unique perspectives will not lead to anything productive. ~spot From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Thu Aug 13 16:56:56 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:56:56 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4A844435.4020409@redhat.com> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A4CD8FA.5070805@redhat.com> <4a843488.gW5Kh3bwQGSjHVd2%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A844435.4020409@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4a8445d8.KtrnIGZ1lJpjJ0Hl%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > On 08/13/2009 11:43 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Mr. Callaway, > > > > in a previous mail you did already admit that you are not a lawyer. In your > > last mail you verified that you do not understand that background of the case > > and that you did not ask a lawyer for help. > > Please do not feed the troll. Both Red Hat Legal and Fedora Legal > consider this matter a non-issue, and Joerg's response makes it > abundantly clear that further discussion of his unique perspectives will > not lead to anything productive. Thank you for proving that you have not a single valid legal argument and that you prefer to send personal offenses before having a fact based discussion. Does your response mean that we need to consider redhat to be OSS hostile? J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Aug 13 19:13:51 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:13:51 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4a8445d8.KtrnIGZ1lJpjJ0Hl%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A4CD8FA.5070805@redhat.com> <4a843488.gW5Kh3bwQGSjHVd2%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A844435.4020409@redhat.com> <4a8445d8.KtrnIGZ1lJpjJ0Hl%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4A8465EF.8080604@redhat.com> On 08/13/2009 12:56 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Does your response mean that we need to consider redhat to be OSS hostile? On the contrary, I would consider that dealing with you, personally, is a futile endeavour. Fedora remains committed to Free Software, and should you choose to resolve the inherent incompatibilities with the licensing you have chosen in your software, will happily consider including it in Fedora. However, as you clearly disagree with the assessments of Red Hat's legal team (all of whom are lawyers), as well as the Free Software Foundation's legal team (all of whom are lawyers), I see no further productive outcome in continuing to converse with you, especially as you continue to draw incorrect conclusions while simultaneously making irrelevant points, citing irrelevant documents, and making personal attacks. I would in fact go so far as to state that it is you, and your actions, which are "OSS hostile". Accordingly, this will be my last post on this thread, and I recommend that others also refrain from "feeding the troll". ~tom From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Thu Aug 13 20:50:32 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:50:32 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora In-Reply-To: <4A8465EF.8080604@redhat.com> References: <4a32a20d.rO8bGvYBu9WbNbST%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A4CD8FA.5070805@redhat.com> <4a843488.gW5Kh3bwQGSjHVd2%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A844435.4020409@redhat.com> <4a8445d8.KtrnIGZ1lJpjJ0Hl%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <4A8465EF.8080604@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4a847c98.K8P7qrpV/++TVvzF%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > However, as you clearly disagree with the assessments of Red Hat's legal > team (all of whom are lawyers), as well as the Free Software > Foundation's legal team (all of whom are lawyers), I see no further > productive outcome in continuing to converse with you, especially as you > continue to draw incorrect conclusions while simultaneously making > irrelevant points, citing irrelevant documents, and making personal attacks. I am disappointed to see that you again confirm that you have no interest in a productive discussion although I tried to start a productive discussion several times (the first time I tried was in March 2009). It is obvious that you have no arguments to show, as you again did not send any single fact or argument. The fact that you send no arguments verifies that I am right. If you had any valid point, you could of course present your arguments. What you send instead of useful arguments, is called Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. It is because of your unwillingness, that we cannot have a productive discussion. It is very unlikely that you did ever talk to a lawyer. If you did, you could use legal arguments. What you do is a very poor way of dealing with a OSS author that has been attacked by people who like to harm OSS. BTW: If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, please send me a private mail. I will see what I can do for you. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From cjac at colliertech.org Sat Aug 15 02:49:32 2009 From: cjac at colliertech.org (C.J. Adams-Collier) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:49:32 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora and MS-PL (Dynamic Language Runtime) Message-ID: <1250304572.24062.32.camel@norseth> Hey all, We (the Debian CLI Libraries Team) are packaging IronRuby, IronPython and the Dynamic Language Runtime for Debian. Much of the source in this package is released under the Microsoft Public License: http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-cli-libs/packages/dlr-languages.git;a=blob;f=debian/copyright;h=74dc4d7f7144e9a0251fa2a32177332a01558d84;hb=f3c10b84cf5f12cb670d14232263ac81662ff714 I asked my friend Brett if he would help us get it packaged up in RPM format for Fedora. He tells me that the MS-PL is not on the approved list for Redhat packages: 14:55 < wakko666> cj: my main concern about packaging ironruby is licensing. Fedora will accept packages under the MS-Shared-Source license, but the MS-PL isn't on their list of acceptable license. 14:58 < cj> wakko666: alrighty. jschementi is the guy to talk with about licensing issues. He'll be back some time soon, I'm sure 14:58 < wakko666> of course, i can always write the spec file and you guys can host your own rpms, but it would be nice to actually get it into Fedora proper. 14:59 < cj> also, MS-PL is dfsg compliant and [OSI]-approved. Is it a decision to deny MS-PL or that it just hasn't been reviewed yet? 14:59 < wakko666> not sure. we'd need to ask on the fedora-legal-list mailing list 14:59 < wakko666> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses [ed: I mis-wrote OSL-approved] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html I do not see MS-PL on the DFSG wiki page: http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses However, Mono contains code licensed under MS-PL and it is part of the main section, implying that it is compliant: http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-mono/packages/mono.git;a=blob;f=debian/copyright;h=3426e0c3f05891a267ebef547490c8dae999da96;hb=8b65c7c94ae3c808859fb1f2b90aeac92abc53e9 Are the MS-PL pieces of Mono stripped from the Fedora package of Mono? mcs/class/MicrosoftAjaxLibrary/* mcs/class/System.Web.Mvc/* Looking forward to your response, C.J. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Sat Aug 15 02:55:54 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:55:54 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora and MS-PL (Dynamic Language Runtime) In-Reply-To: <1250304572.24062.32.camel@norseth> References: <1250304572.24062.32.camel@norseth> Message-ID: <4A8623BA.40608@redhat.com> On 08/14/2009 10:49 PM, C.J. Adams-Collier wrote: > Hey all, > > We (the Debian CLI Libraries Team) are packaging IronRuby, IronPython > and the Dynamic Language Runtime for Debian. Much of the source in this > package is released under the Microsoft Public License: > > http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-cli-libs/packages/dlr-languages.git;a=blob;f=debian/copyright;h=74dc4d7f7144e9a0251fa2a32177332a01558d84;hb=f3c10b84cf5f12cb670d14232263ac81662ff714 > > I asked my friend Brett if he would help us get it packaged up in RPM > format for Fedora. He tells me that the MS-PL is not on the approved > list for Redhat packages: > > 14:55 < wakko666> cj: my main concern about packaging ironruby is licensing. > Fedora will accept packages under the MS-Shared-Source > license, but the MS-PL isn't on their list of acceptable > license. This is actually not correct, MS-Shared-Source is not a Free license and is not acceptable for Fedora. I'll run MS-PL past Red Hat Legal to see what they think about it. Thanks, ~tom From tcallawa at redhat.com Sat Aug 15 13:50:28 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 09:50:28 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora and MS-PL (Dynamic Language Runtime) In-Reply-To: References: <1250304572.24062.32.camel@norseth> <4A8623BA.40608@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A86BD24.2060607@redhat.com> On 08/14/2009 11:28 PM, brett lentz wrote: > I simply stated that it is listed on > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses as being > acceptable for Fedora. Look carefully. It is listed there as a "Bad License". ~spot From stickster at gmail.com Sat Aug 15 16:25:56 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:25:56 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Software patents page Message-ID: <20090815162556.GB6073@localhost.localdomain> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Software_Patents It would be a good idea for people on this list involved in legal matters to check the content of this page, to make sure it's accurate and current. -- 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 From tcallawa at redhat.com Sun Aug 16 02:45:17 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:45:17 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora and MS-PL (Dynamic Language Runtime) In-Reply-To: <0047ECBFA2E0DF4A834AA369282A5AFC19BD6C7F@tk5ex14mbxc106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> References: <1250304572.24062.32.camel@norseth> <4A8623BA.40608@redhat.com> , <4A86BD24.2060607@redhat.com> <0047ECBFA2E0DF4A834AA369282A5AFC19BD6C7F@tk5ex14mbxc106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Message-ID: <4A8772BD.9030104@redhat.com> On 08/15/2009 06:57 PM, Jimmy Schementi wrote: > For what it's worth, IronRuby, IronPython, and the DLR are licensed under the "Microsoft Public License", which is OSI approved: > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html > > IronRuby is not associated with the "Microsoft Shared Source License". Yes, I do understand that part. :) I was simply correcting the point that the MS Shared Source License was in any way acceptable for Fedora (it is not). The MS Public License is acceptable for Fedora, Free but GPL incompatible. I'm adding it to the table now. ~tom From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sun Aug 16 08:02:38 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:32:38 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora and MS-PL (Dynamic Language Runtime) In-Reply-To: <4A8772BD.9030104@redhat.com> References: <1250304572.24062.32.camel@norseth> <4A8623BA.40608@redhat.com> , <4A86BD24.2060607@redhat.com> <0047ECBFA2E0DF4A834AA369282A5AFC19BD6C7F@tk5ex14mbxc106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4A8772BD.9030104@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A87BD1E.7090702@fedoraproject.org> On 08/16/2009 08:15 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 08/15/2009 06:57 PM, Jimmy Schementi wrote: >> For what it's worth, IronRuby, IronPython, and the DLR are licensed under the "Microsoft Public License", which is OSI approved: >> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html >> >> IronRuby is not associated with the "Microsoft Shared Source License". > > Yes, I do understand that part. :) I was simply correcting the point > that the MS Shared Source License was in any way acceptable for Fedora > (it is not). > > The MS Public License is acceptable for Fedora, Free but GPL > incompatible. I'm adding it to the table now. Can you let me know why it is GPL incompatible? Rahul From cjac at colliertech.org Sun Aug 16 08:19:47 2009 From: cjac at colliertech.org (C.J. Adams-Collier) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:19:47 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora and MS-PL (Dynamic Language Runtime) In-Reply-To: <4A87BD1E.7090702@fedoraproject.org> References: <1250304572.24062.32.camel@norseth> <4A8623BA.40608@redhat.com> , <4A86BD24.2060607@redhat.com> <0047ECBFA2E0DF4A834AA369282A5AFC19BD6C7F@tk5ex14mbxc106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4A8772BD.9030104@redhat.com> <4A87BD1E.7090702@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1250410787.14480.0.camel@norseth> On Sun, 2009-08-16 at 13:32 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 08/16/2009 08:15 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > Yes, I do understand that part. :) I was simply correcting the point > > that the MS Shared Source License was in any way acceptable for Fedora > > (it is not). > > > > The MS Public License is acceptable for Fedora, Free but GPL > > incompatible. I'm adding it to the table now. > > Can you let me know why it is GPL incompatible? > > Rahul > IANAL, but perhaps: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0-standalone.html#section11 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Sun Aug 16 10:49:05 2009 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:49:05 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora and MS-PL (Dynamic Language Runtime) In-Reply-To: <4A87BD1E.7090702@fedoraproject.org> References: <1250304572.24062.32.camel@norseth> <4A8623BA.40608@redhat.com> <4A86BD24.2060607@redhat.com> <0047ECBFA2E0DF4A834AA369282A5AFC19BD6C7F@tk5ex14mbxc106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4A8772BD.9030104@redhat.com> <4A87BD1E.7090702@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4a87e421.CIxdDVPvrfkd03Bp%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Can you let me know why it is GPL incompatible? Any other license (in case that it protects against being hidden in closed source projects) is incompatibile with the GPL and this is caused by the GPL. While this so called "GPL incompatibility" sounds like a major obstacle, it only prevents "low level collaboration" i.e. you cannot mix code under GPL with code under other licenses _directly_ inside a single "work". The usual software use cases are not affected by this "GPL incompatibility". The GPL was designed in the late 1980s to allow a GPLd project to be linked against any library under any license as long as this library was developed independently (i.e. being a own separate work). This was needed in order to make the GPL useful for real world applications. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sun Aug 16 10:55:39 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:25:39 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora and MS-PL (Dynamic Language Runtime) In-Reply-To: <4a87e421.CIxdDVPvrfkd03Bp%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <1250304572.24062.32.camel@norseth> <4A8623BA.40608@redhat.com> <4A86BD24.2060607@redhat.com> <0047ECBFA2E0DF4A834AA369282A5AFC19BD6C7F@tk5ex14mbxc106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4A8772BD.9030104@redhat.com> <4A87BD1E.7090702@fedoraproject.org> <4a87e421.CIxdDVPvrfkd03Bp%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <4A87E5AB.6060602@fedoraproject.org> On 08/16/2009 04:19 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Can you let me know why it is GPL incompatible? > > Any other license (in case that it protects against being hidden > in closed source projects) is incompatibile with the GPL and this is > caused by the GPL. In case, it wasn't clear, I was directing the question to Tom Callaway since he is the Fedora Legal representative and what he says is discussed with Red Hat Legal. I know the general ideas around licensing incompatibility and don't need them repeated to me. Thanks. Rahul From rfontana at redhat.com Sun Aug 16 18:22:06 2009 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:22:06 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora and MS-PL (Dynamic Language Runtime) In-Reply-To: <4A87BD1E.7090702@fedoraproject.org> References: <1250304572.24062.32.camel@norseth> <4A8623BA.40608@redhat.com> <4A86BD24.2060607@redhat.com> <0047ECBFA2E0DF4A834AA369282A5AFC19BD6C7F@tk5ex14mbxc106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4A8772BD.9030104@redhat.com> <4A87BD1E.7090702@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20090816142206.664dcac3@calliope> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:32:38 +0530 Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 08/16/2009 08:15 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > On > > The MS Public License is acceptable for Fedora, Free but GPL > > incompatible. I'm adding it to the table now. > > Can you let me know why it is GPL incompatible? It says: If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license. We believe that the "only under this license" condition should be interpreted as a weak copyleft requirement; such requirements are customarily considered GPL-incompatible. We've discussed this with the Free Software Foundation, which agrees with our interpretation. My recollection is that when the MS-PL was submitted for OSI approval, in the ensuing discussion on license-discuss, the Microsoft legal representatives made clear that they had designed the license to be GPL-incompatible. Possibly I'm misremembering. However, Microsoft could settle the matter by clarifying whether the provision I quoted is a weak copyleft requirement, or not. - RF From giallu at gmail.com Wed Aug 19 10:08:57 2009 From: giallu at gmail.com (Gianluca Sforna) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:08:57 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Pymol license review Message-ID: I just noticed this text in the F11 pymol license file: Open-Source PyMOL Copyright Notice ================================== The Open-Source PyMOL source code is copyrighted, but you can freely use and copy it as long as you don't change or remove any of the Copyright notices. The Open-Source PyMOL product is made available under the following open-source license terms: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Open-Source PyMOL is Copyright (C) 1998-2003 Warren L. DeLano and Copyright (C) 2003-2009 DeLano Scientific LLC, Palo Alto, California, U.S.A., (www.delanoscientific.com). All Rights Reserved Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and distribute modified versions of this software and its built-in documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the names of Warren L. DeLano or DeLano Scientific LLC not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission. The License field in the RPM says: MIT and BSD and ZPLv2.0 and Bitstream Vera and OFL so I assume it changed at some point and grown the "without fee" clause, but right now that looks like not acceptable in Fedora anymore. Can anyone confirm my analysis? -- Gianluca Sforna http://morefedora.blogspot.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/gianlucasforna From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Aug 19 15:28:02 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:28:02 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Pymol license review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A8C1A02.9020008@redhat.com> On 08/19/2009 06:08 AM, Gianluca Sforna wrote: > I just noticed this text in the F11 pymol license file: > > Open-Source PyMOL Copyright Notice > ================================== > > The Open-Source PyMOL source code is copyrighted, but you can freely > use and copy it as long as you don't change or remove any of the > Copyright notices. The Open-Source PyMOL product is made available > under the following open-source license terms: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Open-Source PyMOL is Copyright (C) 1998-2003 Warren L. DeLano and > Copyright (C) 2003-2009 DeLano Scientific LLC, Palo Alto, > California, U.S.A., (www.delanoscientific.com). > > All Rights Reserved > > Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and distribute modified > versions of this software and its built-in documentation for any > purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above > copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright > notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, > and that the names of Warren L. DeLano or DeLano Scientific LLC not be > used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the > software without specific, written prior permission. After consulting with Red Hat Legal, we agree that this is an acceptable license for Fedora. That phrase is occasionally seen in older permissive licenses, and it means "you can do what you want with this, and $COPYRIGHT_HOLDER won't charge you any royalty" as opposed to "you can do what you want with this as long as you don't charge a fee". Just a fun little MIT variant. :) ~spot From atodorov at redhat.com Thu Aug 20 08:02:59 2009 From: atodorov at redhat.com (Alexander Todorov) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:02:59 +0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Pylons license Message-ID: <4A8D0333.7080201@redhat.com> Hi folks, I'm playing with Pylons - a framework for web applications in Python. This is not present as a package in Fedora and it's license doesn't look like standard FOSS license: http://pylonshq.com/project/pylonshq/browser/LICENSE Can you tell me what license is this and if it is suitable for Fedora? Thanks, Alexander. From atodorov at redhat.com Thu Aug 20 08:33:50 2009 From: atodorov at redhat.com (Alexander Todorov) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:33:50 +0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Pylons license In-Reply-To: <2d319b780908200124k8798e37n50ce3734bbab98a8@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A8D0333.7080201@redhat.com> <2d319b780908200124k8798e37n50ce3734bbab98a8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A8D0A6E.8090307@redhat.com> Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:02, Alexander Todorov wrote: >> Hi folks, >> I'm playing with Pylons - a framework for web applications in Python. >> This is not present as a package in Fedora > > Actually it is: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/python-pylons > > About your licensing question, I let that to the experts :) > > Ahh, I didn't find it somehow. Thanks for the pointer. The rpm package says BSD in the License tag and it is in Fedora already so I guess it's OK. Regards, Alexander. From tibbs at math.uh.edu Thu Aug 20 18:12:20 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:12:20 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] "Old Style with legal disclaimer 4" MIT license Message-ID: I was looking at a package which contains license text identical to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style_with_legal_disclaimer_4 (the review is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452321) The package maintainer and upstream contend this is BSD, not MIT. Personally I think the license tag is for Fedora's use, and so there shouldn't be any harm in just using MIT as the licensing page indicates. Still, I figured it would be good to double-check. - J< From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Aug 20 18:26:16 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:26:16 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] "Old Style with legal disclaimer 4" MIT license In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A8D9548.4000805@redhat.com> On 08/20/2009 02:12 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I was looking at a package which contains license text identical to: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style_with_legal_disclaimer_4 > (the review is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452321) > > The package maintainer and upstream contend this is BSD, not MIT. > Personally I think the license tag is for Fedora's use, and so there > shouldn't be any harm in just using MIT as the licensing page > indicates. Still, I figured it would be good to double-check. Upstream is wrong. Please tag it as MIT. The BSD license (as written by the Regents of the University of California) is notably different. It is occasionally confusing because occasionally, in recent years, works coming out of California Universities (thus, copyright held by the Regents of the University of California) have used the MIT license. ~spot From tibbs at math.uh.edu Thu Aug 20 18:36:28 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:36:28 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] "Old Style with legal disclaimer 4" MIT license In-Reply-To: <4A8D9548.4000805@redhat.com> (Tom Callaway's message of "Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:26:16 -0400") References: <4A8D9548.4000805@redhat.com> Message-ID: >>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway writes: TC> Upstream is wrong. Please tag it as MIT. I believe in that case that the license tag on the postgresql package is also incorrect: > grep License *spec License: BSD > cat postgresql-8.4.0/COPYRIGHT PostgreSQL Database Management System (formerly known as Postgres, then as Postgres95) Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2009, PostgreSQL Global Development Group Portions Copyright (c) 1994, The Regents of the University of California Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written agreement is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE SOFTWARE PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS NO OBLIGATIONS TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS. - J< From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Aug 20 19:00:01 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:00:01 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] "Old Style with legal disclaimer 4" MIT license In-Reply-To: References: <4A8D9548.4000805@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A8D9D31.9060801@redhat.com> On 08/20/2009 02:36 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway writes: > > TC> Upstream is wrong. Please tag it as MIT. > > I believe in that case that the license tag on the postgresql package is > also incorrect: Yeah, that is definitely MIT rather than BSD, even though the PostgreSQL folks think it is BSD. There seems to be quite a bit of confusion around BSD vs MIT, and while they have the same general license compatibility with respect to things like GPL, they are not the same license. I've fixed Postgresql's tag in CVS, there should be no need to push updates for it simply to fix this tag, but any future updates should retain the fixed license tag. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Aug 20 22:43:53 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:43:53 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] "Old Style with legal disclaimer 4" MIT license In-Reply-To: <20617.1250807337@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <4A8D9548.4000805@redhat.com> <4A8D9D31.9060801@redhat.com> <20617.1250807337@sss.pgh.pa.us> Message-ID: <4A8DD1A9.1060003@redhat.com> On 08/20/2009 06:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" writes: >> I've fixed Postgresql's tag in CVS, there should be no need to push >> updates for it simply to fix this tag, but any future updates should >> retain the fixed license tag. > > I have a problem with you summarily doing this. The upstream does not > think the license is MIT, and this is going to cause an enormous amount > of confusion and possibly a PR disaster. The upstream can think whatever they want to, it is not the BSD license. This is the BSD license, as defined by the OSI, the Regents of the University of California, and Fedora: http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php That is NOT the license used by PostgreSQL. The intent of the license used by PostgreSQL is similar, but it is not identical. Notably, the BSD license says that the name of the copyright holders/contributors may not be used to "endorse or promote products derived from the software without specific prior written permission". That clause is absent from the PostgreSQL license. If the PostgreSQL upstream wants to relicense to the BSD license, that is something they can do, but we're not going to pretend it is BSD for the sake of PR, any more than we would pretend it is the "magic flying pony license" if they asked us to. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Aug 21 18:06:18 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:06:18 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] "Old Style with legal disclaimer 4" MIT license In-Reply-To: <6448.1250875063@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <4A8D9548.4000805@redhat.com> <4A8D9D31.9060801@redhat.com> <20617.1250807337@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4A8DD1A9.1060003@redhat.com> <6448.1250875063@sss.pgh.pa.us> Message-ID: <4A8EE21A.3020903@redhat.com> On 08/21/2009 01:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I also see that OSI's first page above notes that the "Simplified BSD > License" is effectively equivalent to the MIT license, but they do not > therefore lump them together. They are "Effectively equivalent", from a GPL compatibility perspective, and in the way that both licenses are permissive, but they are not in any way, identical. This is why they are not lumped together. > The reason I've got a problem with this is that "we use the BSD license" > is part of the Postgres project's self-identity and self-description, to > a degree perhaps not found elsewhere. This is silly. We use the "License:" field to track actual licensing data within Fedora, not any lies that upstream wishes to place in that field. If you're unwilling to stand behind the truth, then feel free to defer all flames around the fact that our license tag is accurate to me. > I agree that "License: BSD" is not sufficiently detailed for Fedora's > purposes, but it seems to me that that problem affects more than just > Postgres. Perhaps the right way forward is to ask people to distinguish > "4-clause BSD", "3-clause BSD", "2-clause BSD"; which I think covers > the significant variations. So, we already do this, in as much as the 4-clause BSD is "BSD with advertising", and all other BSD variants are almost identical in language and rights. The MIT license, while similar in intent, is wholly different in both language and rights. As I've said to Josh Berkus in private, I am entirely unwilling to lie about the license of the package simply because upstream is more comfortable with the lie. If the PostgreSQL upstream wishes to continue lying about about their own license to the world, I cannot prevent them. There are four basic authorities on FOSS licensing in our community: The FSF, the OSI, Debian, and Fedora. Every single one of these entities agrees on what is the "BSD license": OSI: http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php FSF: http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5 (linked from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD) Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD Debian: http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license (linked from http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/) In fact, every one of them also agrees on what is the "MIT license" (to be fair, the FSF prefers it be referred to as the "X11 license"): OSI: http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php FSF: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11License (They refer to it as X11) Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT Debian: http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt (linked from http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/) If you compare the two licenses to the PostgreSQL license text: *** Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written agreement is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE SOFTWARE PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS NO OBLIGATIONS TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS. *** It is clear that the PostgreSQL license is MIT. In fact, we have been listing this exact text on the Fedora MIT page for some time now (added in July 2008): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style_with_legal_disclaimer_4 The fact that PostgreSQL came from UC Berkeley and that the text of the PostgreSQL license was written by the University of California, Berkeley, may make it a "Berkeley Systems License", but it does NOT make it the "BSD license". With all due respect to you and the PostgreSQL upstream, we're not about to start lying about the licensing found on code, for anyone, or for any reason. If the PostgreSQL community wants the Fedora packages to say "License: BSD", then they have a single method to achieve that goal: Relicense the code base under the terms of the "BSD license". ~spot From rdieter at math.unl.edu Thu Aug 27 14:47:29 2009 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:47:29 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] sip licensing bump in the road Message-ID: fyi, sip licensing fun on the way, http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=543730 , riverbank is being contacted for clarification of their intent. This impacts the qt/kde python bindings stack. -- Rex From maxamillion at gmail.com Mon Aug 31 13:49:59 2009 From: maxamillion at gmail.com (Adam Miller) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:49:59 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] fedoraadmin.com trademark violation? Message-ID: I stumbled across the website http://fedoraadmin.com/ and it first appeared to me as an eye soar and was going to try and contact its owner to see if we couldn't coordinate some redesign either with Fedora or non-Fedora centric resources just so that it would at least provide information to users in an eye pleasing manner. During this quest I formed the hunch that the owner probably lacks trademark approval for using the Fedora name in their domain name. I spoke with Paul W. Frields in #fedora-devel and he mentioned that I should post here, so I did. :) Many thanks, -Adam -- http://maxamillion.googlepages.com --------------------------------------------------------- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments