From stickster at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 18:01:52 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:01:52 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information In-Reply-To: <4ACAB806.1010403@redhat.com> References: <87r5v097yw.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4A947E2D.7070306@redhat.com> <87skffrnwn.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4ACA85A0.6030801@redhat.com> <4ACAB806.1010403@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091006180152.GT4688@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 01:22:46PM +1000, Ruediger Landmann wrote: > On 10/06/2009 09:47 AM, Jeffrey Fearn wrote: > >Mikhail Gusarov wrote: > >>IANAL, but this can be specified in single file, like > >>Common_Content/common/README: "all the data in this directory is under > >>GFDL", but better check with your legal department. > > > >Rudi is talking with the legal people about this, we expect a > >separate update message shortly. > > Thanks Jeff :) > > Red Hat legal has identified a number of ambiguities around the > licenses involved: specifically, the relationship between the > license of the package against the license of the text in the Common > Content files, against the license of books that users produce that > incorporates that Common Content. > > One particular problem is that as things stand right now, if the > text in Common Content is licensed under the GFDL, this means that > any book that anybody builds in Publican that incorporates that text > must also be licensed under the GFDL (or a compatible license). > This, in turn, creates an immediate incompatibility in any brand > package that loads a legal notice with a different license... > > Legal's solution is that we include a note that explicitly spells > out that whatever license appears between the tags in > the Legal_Notice.xml file applies only to the books into which it is > pre-loaded, and not the text of the Legal Notice file itself. > Furthermore, they suggest pretty much exactly what you suggested, > Mikhail -- we find as permissive a license as possible for the > Common Content files, and license them under that, separately from > the rest of the contents of the package. > > So far we've looked at the WTFPL[1], CC0[2], and the so-called GNU > All-Permissive License[3]. > > We had to regretfully reject the WTFPL on the basis that some people > might find it offensive. :( This is a real shame, because it > basically stands for everything that we need the license on the > Common Content files to stand for... > > When we read the GNU "All-Permissive" License, it turned out to be > not what it claims, since rather than being "all permissive", it > requires re-users to leave the license in place. Relicensing is > therefore as difficult as it is now. > > Although CC0 is cumbersome (check out the full legal code! [4]), it > seems to do what we need it to do. It's therefore the current > favourite as license of choice for the Common Content files, unless > anyone on the list knows of a similarly broad license with less > legalese? > > > Cheers > > Ruediger > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL > > [2] http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ > > [3] http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html > > [4] http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode I'm forwarding a copy of this to the fedora-legal-list -- Spot may be able to suggest something appropriate to cover the publican Common Content. We need this license to be compatible with inclusion in works produced by Fedora Docs, and in works that incorporate content from the Fedora wiki, right? If CC0 can coexist peacefully in that role with the new CC licensing used in both those cases, it does seem like the best contender. -- 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 Tue Oct 6 18:14:12 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:14:12 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information In-Reply-To: <20091006180152.GT4688@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <87r5v097yw.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4A947E2D.7070306@redhat.com> <87skffrnwn.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4ACA85A0.6030801@redhat.com> <4ACAB806.1010403@redhat.com> <20091006180152.GT4688@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <4ACB88F4.9000401@redhat.com> On 10/06/2009 02:01 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > We need this license to be compatible with inclusion in works produced > by Fedora Docs, and in works that incorporate content from the Fedora > wiki, right? If CC0 can coexist peacefully in that role with the new > CC licensing used in both those cases, it does seem like the best > contender. Assuming that the CC licensing is "CC-BY-SA" (Attribution Share-Alike), right? I've asked Red Hat Legal here, just to make sure my instincts are right. ~spot From stickster at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 18:46:45 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:46:45 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information In-Reply-To: <4ACB88F4.9000401@redhat.com> References: <87r5v097yw.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4A947E2D.7070306@redhat.com> <87skffrnwn.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4ACA85A0.6030801@redhat.com> <4ACAB806.1010403@redhat.com> <20091006180152.GT4688@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ACB88F4.9000401@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091006184645.GD15104@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 02:14:12PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On 10/06/2009 02:01 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > We need this license to be compatible with inclusion in works produced > > by Fedora Docs, and in works that incorporate content from the Fedora > > wiki, right? If CC0 can coexist peacefully in that role with the new > > CC licensing used in both those cases, it does seem like the best > > contender. > > Assuming that the CC licensing is "CC-BY-SA" (Attribution Share-Alike), > right? > > I've asked Red Hat Legal here, just to make sure my instincts are right. Correct, the Docs project is switching to CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-October/msg00001.html -- 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 Tue Oct 6 19:38:20 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:38:20 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information In-Reply-To: <20091006184645.GD15104@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <87r5v097yw.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4A947E2D.7070306@redhat.com> <87skffrnwn.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4ACA85A0.6030801@redhat.com> <4ACAB806.1010403@redhat.com> <20091006180152.GT4688@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ACB88F4.9000401@redhat.com> <20091006184645.GD15104@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <4ACB9CAC.6030008@redhat.com> On 10/06/2009 02:46 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 02:14:12PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: >> On 10/06/2009 02:01 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: >>> We need this license to be compatible with inclusion in works produced >>> by Fedora Docs, and in works that incorporate content from the Fedora >>> wiki, right? If CC0 can coexist peacefully in that role with the new >>> CC licensing used in both those cases, it does seem like the best >>> contender. >> >> Assuming that the CC licensing is "CC-BY-SA" (Attribution Share-Alike), >> right? >> >> I've asked Red Hat Legal here, just to make sure my instincts are right. > > Correct, the Docs project is switching to CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-October/msg00001.html Yeah, neither I nor Red Hat Legal sees any problem with using the CC-Zero license in conjunction with CC-BY-SA, as described previously in this thread. ~spot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Oct 7 16:36:44 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:06:44 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: New blog post In-Reply-To: <4ACCC05A.5060109@redhat.com> References: <4ACBB454.4060106@redhat.com> <20091006234732.GO15104@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ACC3D10.3070109@fedoraproject.org> <20091007131126.GH28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ACC95C3.1090303@fedoraproject.org> <4ACCC05A.5060109@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACCC39C.30708@fedoraproject.org> On 10/07/2009 09:52 PM, Colby Hoke wrote: > > Put yourself in the shoes of legal - someone takes this video, cuts it > up to make us look bad or misrepresent us in some way- let your > imagination run free... That video gets uploaded, blogged about, people > assume it's from us and someone takes exception. The one hard part about > Creative Commons is the Attribution. On one hand, we want people to know > who originally made the video, on the other hand we don't want our name > associated with a derivative that is malicious. I always as a rule put myself in the shoes of a community member rather than Legal because I understand the community requirements better than the legal requirements. My interest in the legal details are only because they help the community. I can't pretend to be a lawyer but I would have thought a deliberately malicious alteration would have other legal resources compared to simply denying the freedom to remix the video. It is not just translations. What If I want to take a few minutes of the clip and weave it into a different story? What about a different local language voice over? I am sure you can understand why allowing this creative freedom to flourish by providing the source material under a liberal license is useful. > It's tough to do, but we're getting closer. We don't default to > CC-BY-NC-ND anymore- the default drops the NC from that. It's a step in > the right direction and we have it as a goal to do more SA videos. Yes, > we've only done one, to date, but I want our team to do it whenever > possible. Yes, I have been pushing for the NC clause to be dropped for a long time, too. Happy to see progress on that front. > It's a very good idea for the future Fedora videos to be CC-BY-SA. I'll > see what I can do as far as that goes, but we have to follow the advice > of legal counsel. Sure. Copying fedora-legal list. One more thing to consider: We have been doing Flash streaming and using for downloads. Now that Firefox (Epiphany, Opera, Chrome as well) has built-in Ogg support, I think we can stream Ogg Theora videos directly using simple flash fallbacks for browsers that don't support it. In case, you haven't seen Nicu's mail, refer to http://camendesign.com/code/video_for_everybody Rahul From rfontana at redhat.com Wed Oct 7 17:34:37 2009 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:34:37 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information In-Reply-To: <20091006180152.GT4688@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <87r5v097yw.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4A947E2D.7070306@redhat.com> <87skffrnwn.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4ACA85A0.6030801@redhat.com> <4ACAB806.1010403@redhat.com> <20091006180152.GT4688@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <20091007133437.474fb329@calliope> On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:01:52 -0400 "Paul W. Frields" wrote: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 01:22:46PM +1000, Ruediger Landmann wrote: > > > So far we've looked at the WTFPL[1], CC0[2], and the so-called GNU > > All-Permissive License[3]. > > > > We had to regretfully reject the WTFPL on the basis that some people > > might find it offensive. :( This is a real shame, because it > > basically stands for everything that we need the license on the > > Common Content files to stand for... Agreed, this is unfortunate. :) > > When we read the GNU "All-Permissive" License, it turned out to be > > not what it claims, since rather than being "all permissive", it > > requires re-users to leave the license in place. Relicensing is > > therefore as difficult as it is now. I think this is not a correct interpretation, as the mere fact that a license requires preservation of a licensing notice doesn't mean that it has a copyleft effect; this is well established in FOSS tradition as evidenced by BSD and MIT and Apache (etc.) licensing. Nevertheless, it is true that CC-0 requires no preservation of the CC-0 text; indeed it logically couldn't because in CC-0 the copyright holder is at least attempting to abandon all ability to enforce copyright on the work. No objection to CC-0 though, which in the end is probably no worse than and probably better than traditional simple public domain dedications. - RF From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Oct 7 19:28:51 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:28:51 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: New blog post In-Reply-To: <4ACCE7A8.7060104@redhat.com> References: <4ACBB454.4060106@redhat.com> <20091006234732.GO15104@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ACC3D10.3070109@fedoraproject.org> <20091007131126.GH28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ACC95C3.1090303@fedoraproject.org> <4ACCC05A.5060109@redhat.com> <4ACCC39C.30708@fedoraproject.org> <4ACCE7A8.7060104@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACCEBF3.7000005@redhat.com> On 10/07/2009 03:10 PM, Colby Hoke wrote: > I understand all of that. I'm saying what if someone else cuts it up and > each time he mentions developers, he suddenly says Nazis. (Yeah I went > there, I'm just saying...) I tend to believe that the people who want to make disgusting and hateful remixes of our content will do so irregardless of our licensing model. By restricting derivative works, we merely prevent those with good and positive intentions from doing so. Or, to frame it another way, should we prevent people from making code changes to our software because they could turn the software into dangerous viruses or Nazi themed window managers? (Hey, you went there first.) ~spot From tibbs at math.uh.edu Wed Oct 7 23:44:54 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:44:54 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information In-Reply-To: <20091007133437.474fb329@calliope> (Richard Fontana's message of "Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:34:37 -0400") References: <87r5v097yw.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4A947E2D.7070306@redhat.com> <87skffrnwn.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4ACA85A0.6030801@redhat.com> <4ACAB806.1010403@redhat.com> <20091006180152.GT4688@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091007133437.474fb329@calliope> Message-ID: >>>>> "RF" == Richard Fontana writes: [Offensiveness of WTFPL text] RF> Agreed, this is unfortunate. :) Might I suggest simply modifying the offensive language? I know license proliferation is bad, but if the result is legally equivalent and serves the necessary purpose then I don't see any reason not to just do it. - J< From tibbs at math.uh.edu Thu Oct 8 00:06:17 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:06:17 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information In-Reply-To: (Jason L. Tibbitts, III's message of "Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:44:54 -0500") References: <87r5v097yw.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4A947E2D.7070306@redhat.com> <87skffrnwn.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4ACA85A0.6030801@redhat.com> <4ACAB806.1010403@redhat.com> <20091006180152.GT4688@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091007133437.474fb329@calliope> Message-ID: Oh, and don't please don't ever CC a closed list. I got a nice auto-reject message for my trouble. - J< From rfontana at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 00:13:47 2009 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:13:47 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information In-Reply-To: References: <87r5v097yw.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4A947E2D.7070306@redhat.com> <87skffrnwn.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4ACA85A0.6030801@redhat.com> <4ACAB806.1010403@redhat.com> <20091006180152.GT4688@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091007133437.474fb329@calliope> Message-ID: <20091007201347.7f1e31bd@calliope> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:06:17 -0500 Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Oh, and don't please don't ever CC a closed list. I got a nice > auto-reject message for my trouble. As did I. From rfontana at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 01:21:07 2009 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:21:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information In-Reply-To: References: <87r5v097yw.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4A947E2D.7070306@redhat.com> <87skffrnwn.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4ACA85A0.6030801@redhat.com> <4ACAB806.1010403@redhat.com> <20091006180152.GT4688@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091007133437.474fb329@calliope> Message-ID: <20091007212107.237bf124@calliope> [removed publican-list from cc] On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:44:54 -0500 Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: [re: WTFPL] > Might I suggest simply modifying the offensive language? I know > license proliferation is bad, but if the result is legally equivalent > and serves the necessary purpose then I don't see any reason not to > just do it. Certainly Fedora should be prepared to accept licenses that are equivalent to the WTFPL just as it accepts the WTFPL. Also there's no question that the WTFPL has earned an important place in FOSS culture despite being rarely used. However, this is a situation where Red Hat is acting as copyright holder and/or outbound licensor. For *Red Hat code* we generally avoid licenses that are not commonly used (i.e., that aren't associated with substantial project communities), and we generally avoid licenses that are modified versions of other licenses, unless the modified version is itself a commonly-used license. Of course the mere fact that a license is popular doesn't mean it's better, but we see a lot of value in promoting license standardization. For those reasons (and not any sense of primness), we wouldn't encourage our developers to apply the WTFPL to Red Hat-copyrighted code, and we'd certainly oppose applying some sanitized WTFPL derivative to Red Hat-copyrighted code. (On the other hand we encourage our developers to make licensing decisions that are informed by concerns about their users.) - RF From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 01:21:25 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 06:51:25 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: New blog post In-Reply-To: <4ACCE7A8.7060104@redhat.com> References: <4ACBB454.4060106@redhat.com> <20091006234732.GO15104@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ACC3D10.3070109@fedoraproject.org> <20091007131126.GH28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ACC95C3.1090303@fedoraproject.org> <4ACCC05A.5060109@redhat.com> <4ACCC39C.30708@fedoraproject.org> <4ACCE7A8.7060104@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACD3E95.7070706@fedoraproject.org> On 10/08/2009 12:40 AM, Colby Hoke wrote:. > > For example, there was a remix of the Truth Happens video that was put > in with some very questionable material. It was offensive. Due to the > copyright (back then we used copyright), we were able to go after that > video and, I assume, have it taken it down. If you allow people to create remixes, they will create some bad remixes but so what? I know of exactly one example of such a thing tnat that is one you are citing here, in how many years of Red Hat putting out videos like this? The example also shows that people who actually go about creating such bad remixes don't have a damn about copyright or licensing. They just will do it and I am pretty sure I can find a copy of that video regardless of what Red Hat does at this point. Look at this this way: Red Hat releases tens of thousands of lines of code and content (such as documentation or even fonts) under various free and open source licenses. It is possible and even likely that someone will add a bad patch to what Red Hat has released or even fork it on occasions. It doesn't negate the benefits at all. Rahul From michael.silvanus at gmail.com Sun Oct 11 16:52:04 2009 From: michael.silvanus at gmail.com (Michel Alexandre Salim) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Helping the Fan project relicense from AFL Message-ID: <615c05430910110952p940a81cx921d2c26e2fd65e1@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, I'm currently discussing with the developers for Fan (http://fandev.org/), a JVM/CLR language, the possibility of them relicensing or dual-licensing from the Academic Free License. Current discussion thread here: http://fandev.org/sidewalk/topic/777 The main concern seems to be that whatever new license they pick has patent defense clauses, and the developer that responded, Brian, is under the opinion that the Apache license does not provide this (IANAL, but my reading is that it does). We are likely able to convince them to switch to either ASL 2.0 or (L)GPLv3+, so if someone from the legal team (Spot?) could address this concern, we have one more application that suddenly can interoperate with more FLOSS libraries. Thanks, -- Michel Alexandre Salim From rfontana at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 15:14:26 2009 From: rfontana at redhat.com (Richard Fontana) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:14:26 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Helping the Fan project relicense from AFL In-Reply-To: <615c05430910110952p940a81cx921d2c26e2fd65e1@mail.gmail.com> References: <615c05430910110952p940a81cx921d2c26e2fd65e1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091012111426.466f1db5@calliope> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:52:04 -0400 Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm currently discussing with the developers for Fan > (http://fandev.org/), a JVM/CLR language, the possibility of them > relicensing or dual-licensing from the Academic Free License. > > Current discussion thread here: > http://fandev.org/sidewalk/topic/777 > > The main concern seems to be that whatever new license they pick has > patent defense clauses, and the developer that responded, Brian, is > under the opinion that the Apache license does not provide this > (IANAL, but my reading is that it does). > > We are likely able to convince them to switch to either ASL 2.0 or > (L)GPLv3+, so if someone from the legal team (Spot?) could address > this concern, we have one more application that suddenly can > interoperate with more FLOSS libraries. Brian's comment is correct: the patent termination provision in the Apache License 2.0, if triggered, results merely in a loss of patent licenses, not in termination of the copyright license. By contrast, the patent termination feature of (L)GPLv3, if triggered, terminates (at the licensor's option, and subject to the cure provisions) the entire license, including copyright as well as patent licenses. - RF From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 17:12:44 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:12:44 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Fwd: Fedora Blogs In-Reply-To: <4AD34565.1070209@fedoraproject.org> References: <4AD34565.1070209@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4AD3638C.1080606@redhat.com> On 10/12/2009 11:04 AM, Nick Bebout wrote: > Spot (and fedora-legal-list) > > I've answered the rest of the questions, but I did not know exactly how > to reply to the question regarding the CLA. If I say, yes, this is covered under the CLA, would you freak out? :) ~spot From derekl666 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 13 22:35:24 2009 From: derekl666 at yahoo.com (Derek Liauw) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:35:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: 2xSai has an unclear license and may be removed from a number of programs in Fedora Linux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <263202.70242.qm@web113210.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> To whomever it may concern, Given the confusion (see mail history) on some license issue I wrote some time ago. I hereby release all versions of 2xSai, old and new, under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or (at your option) any later version. I did in fact give the ZSNES and probably some other projects permission a long time ago (don't remember exactly when, but probably when it was either first featured or it went from closed source -> GPL), but I guess it wasn't documented as such in the history. For future reference you probably can ping me. [d][e][r][e][k][.][l][i][a][u][w][@][g][m][a][i][l][.][c][o][m] Remove brackets... --- On Tue, 10/13/09, Jason A. Spiro wrote: > From: Jason A. Spiro > Subject: Re: 2xSai has an unclear license and may be removed from a number of programs in Fedora Linux > To: "Derek Liauw" , "Derek Liauw Kie Fa" , "Robert J. Ohannessian" > Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 4:00 AM > Thanks for your reply Derek. > > 1. > > What's your new email address? > I don't check this e-mail often but it's still "in use". Now if yahoo had a forward feature I would use it, but alas... > 2. > > It would be very helpful if I could write to that email > address and CC > a public mailing list.? This might cause you to get > more email about > 2xSaI.? [ You don't have to reply to all the emails; > if need be, you > can just reply with the three words "Sorry, I'm busy". :) > ]? May I > please do that CC'ing, even though your new email address > will then > become public? > > 3. > > Can I forward emails we have sent to each other to public > mailing > lists or forums? > > 4. > > I looked for a public Snes9x source repository but its repo > is > actually nonpublic, and Snes9x is under a "non-commercial > use only" > freeware license.[1]? In zsnes's public repo 2xsai.cpp > is there[2] in > the "deleted files" section of /src/video, but there's no > comment, > even in the revision log[3], that you gave this > permission.? So I fear > that people will incorrectly think ZSNES relicensed your > code without > your permission.? Plus, there are multiple versions of > 2xSaI floating > around. > > Considering both these points, I think the best thing to do > is to > reply to this message with a permission notice.? > Please CC it to a > public mailing list like fedora-legal-list at redhat.com > or > debian-legal at lists.debian.org.? > Either one is fine, but pick only one. > Pick according to your distro preference, or pick > fedora-legal-list > if you don't care.? Write the words "I hereby release > all versions of > 2xSai, old and new, under the GNU General Public License, > version 2 or > (at your option) any later version". > > Kind regards, > -Jason > > ^? [1].? http://www.snes9x.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=4334 > ^? [2].? http://zsnes.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/zsnes/zsnes/src/video/?hideattic=0 > ^? [3].? http://zsnes.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/zsnes/zsnes/src/video/2xsai.cpp?hideattic=0&view=log > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Derek Liauw > wrote: > > Wow, > > > > It's been at least 11 years since I wrote the code and > at least 7 years since > > I checked this e-mail lol... So just saw this > (somewhat old) by chance. So > > hope this still helps. > > > > To be honest I don't care what happens to the code > anymore? > > > > Whatever .zip file is around is probably from my old > xoom/usa.net website. > > > > If I remember correctly I agreed that newer versions > of the code could be > > released under GPL with ZSNES a long time ago (which I > integrated and agreed > > with the original author "_zsKnight"). > > > > And yes I probably neglected to update all > pre-existing files/my abandoned > > website and such. > > > > My bad, but 1. I don't think my website exists > anymore.? 2. If it does exist > > I probably don't know how to update it and the .zip > distro.? 3. I haven't > > felt like making a new website for quite a while :P 4. > I consider ZSNES or > > the Snes9x projects as the new "source" of the > file(s), since those are newer > > versions / I more or less integrated them there, and I > assume the files > > source files already have a GPL license. (my memory > isn't that great). > > > > Hope that helps. > > > > --- On Thu, 7/30/09, Jason A. Spiro > wrote: > > > >> From: Jason A. Spiro > >> Subject: 2xSaI has an unclear license and may be > removed from a number of ?programs in Fedora Linux > >> To: "Derek Liauw Kie Fa" , > "Derek Liauw Kie Fa" , > "Robert J. Ohannessian" > >> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 11:06 PM > >> Hi, > >> > >> Derek's website[1] has a downloadable copy of > 2xSaI > >> available for > >> download.? The text of the website says "GPL", > but the > >> readme file > >> says something contradictory: > >> > >> 2xSaI Utility v0.7? ? ? ? Copyright (c) > >> Derek Liauw Kie Fa, 1999 > >> Comments, Suggestions, Questions, Bugs etc.: derek-liauw at usa.net > >> http://members.xoom.com/derek_liauw/ > >> This program is free for non-commercial use. > >> > >> Is the program GPLed (which means it is free to > sell, > >> modify, and > >> more), or is it merely free for non-commercial > use? > >> If it is GPLed, > >> then Derek, could you please update the zipfile to > say so, > >> and email > >> me the updated file? > >> > >> If you do not answer, then Fedora Linux may have > to rip out > >> 2xSaI from > >> many programs included on the Fedora DVD.? This > will > >> be a lot of work, > >> and will make those programs worse.? :)? This > is > >> because Fedora does > >> not allow software which is only free for > non-commercial > >> use on their > >> DVD.? They require that the DVD be allowed to be > >> sold. > >> > >> Note that I don't represent or volunteer for > Fedora. > >> I am just > >> telling you their policies. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> -Jason Spiro > >> > >> ^? [1].? http://web.archive.org/elektron.its.tudelft.nl/~dalikifa/ > From myschizobuddy at gmail.com Wed Oct 14 11:35:40 2009 From: myschizobuddy at gmail.com (Ziyad Saeed) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:35:40 +0600 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] 4-clause BSD issue Message-ID: There is a question by one of the opensource developers of NanoTCAD whether his code which is a 4-clause BSD is allowed to be packaged in Fedora Electronics Lab or not. I will contact Fedora-Legal and sort out this issue. The license is as follows LICENSE Copyright (c) 2004-2008, G. Fiori, G. Iannaccone, University of Pisa. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. - All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by G.Fiori and G.Iannaccone at University of Pisa. - Neither the name of the University of Pisa nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY G.FIORI AND G.IANNACCONE *AS IS* AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL G.FIORI, AND G.IANNACCONE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From georgios.giannakis.stavros at gmail.com Wed Oct 14 13:29:07 2009 From: georgios.giannakis.stavros at gmail.com (GEORGIOS GIANNAKIS) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:29:07 +0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] OK Message-ID: <2add652f0910140629y57743bcalf488d099d882d15@mail.gmail.com> From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Oct 14 17:12:45 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:12:45 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] 4-clause BSD issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AD6068D.4080309@redhat.com> On 10/14/2009 07:35 AM, Ziyad Saeed wrote: > There is a question by one of the opensource developers of NanoTCAD > whether his code which is a 4-clause BSD is allowed to be packaged in > Fedora Electronics Lab or not. Ziyad, It is permitted, but it is worth mentioning that because of the "advertising" clause, this license is GPL incompatible, which may cause problems with other software. The original author of the BSD license (Regents of the University of California) has stopped using the advertising clause, and has withdrawn it from all code for which they are the copyright holder. I would strongly advise the NanoTCAD developer to also drop the advertising clause. For more information, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#UC_Berkeley_advertising_clause Thanks, Tom Callaway, Fedora Legal From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Oct 14 17:13:36 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:13:36 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] OK In-Reply-To: <2add652f0910140629y57743bcalf488d099d882d15@mail.gmail.com> References: <2add652f0910140629y57743bcalf488d099d882d15@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AD606C0.1000606@redhat.com> On 10/14/2009 09:29 AM, GEORGIOS GIANNAKIS wrote: > This is a difficult question to answer. I'm going to have to go with: 42. Thanks, Tom Callaway, Fedora Legal From myschizobuddy at gmail.com Wed Oct 14 17:44:54 2009 From: myschizobuddy at gmail.com (Ziyad Saeed) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:44:54 +0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] 4-clause BSD issue In-Reply-To: <4AD6068D.4080309@redhat.com> References: <4AD6068D.4080309@redhat.com> Message-ID: Thank you Tom for the replyI have another developer of Genuis 3D. Its a proprietary code so far, but they have plans of open sourcing it. However, the developer mentioned that it will be GPL with some additions. I guess that would make it GPL incompatible. On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 10/14/2009 07:35 AM, Ziyad Saeed wrote: > > There is a question by one of the opensource developers of NanoTCAD > > whether his code which is a 4-clause BSD is allowed to be packaged in > > Fedora Electronics Lab or not. > > Ziyad, > > It is permitted, but it is worth mentioning that because of the > "advertising" clause, this license is GPL incompatible, which may cause > problems with other software. > > The original author of the BSD license (Regents of the University of > California) has stopped using the advertising clause, and has withdrawn > it from all code for which they are the copyright holder. I would > strongly advise the NanoTCAD developer to also drop the advertising clause. > > For more information, see: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#UC_Berkeley_advertising_clause > > Thanks, > > Tom Callaway, Fedora Legal > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tibbs at math.uh.edu Wed Oct 14 19:08:48 2009 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:08:48 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] 4-clause BSD issue In-Reply-To: (Ziyad Saeed's message of "Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:44:54 +0500") References: <4AD6068D.4080309@redhat.com> Message-ID: >>>>> "ZS" == Ziyad Saeed writes: ZS> Thank you Tom for the replyI have another developer of Genuis ZS> 3D. Its a proprietary code so far, but they have plans of open ZS> sourcing it. However, the developer mentioned that it will be GPL ZS> with some additions. I guess that would make it GPL incompatible. Please note that you cannot add restrictions to the GPL, you can only include additional permissions. Or, at least, you can try, but those who receive the work are entitled to simply ignore those restrictions. >From GPLv2 section 7: " All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. " Adding permissions to the GPL does not render the resulting work GPL incompatible as far as I know. (OF course, I'm not a lawyer.) - J< From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Oct 14 19:21:25 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] 4-clause BSD issue In-Reply-To: References: <4AD6068D.4080309@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AD624B5.5040002@redhat.com> On 10/14/2009 03:08 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Adding permissions to the GPL does not render the resulting work GPL > incompatible as far as I know. (OF course, I'm not a lawyer.) This is generally correct, but there are ways around that clause, so it is not safe to assume that. ~spot From pchestek at redhat.com Wed Oct 14 20:01:58 2009 From: pchestek at redhat.com (Pamela Chestek) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:01:58 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: New blog post In-Reply-To: <4ACDF716.9040802@redhat.com> References: <4ACBB454.4060106@redhat.com> <20091006234732.GO15104@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ACC3D10.3070109@fedoraproject.org> <20091007131126.GH28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ACC95C3.1090303@fedoraproject.org> <4ACCC05A.5060109@redhat.com> <4ACCC39C.30708@fedoraproject.org> <4ACCE7A8.7060104@redhat.com> <4ACD3E95.7070706@fedoraproject.org> <4ACDF716.9040802@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AD62E36.1080909@redhat.com> Colby Hoke wrote on 10/08/2009 10:28 AM: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> On 10/08/2009 12:40 AM, Colby Hoke wrote:. >> >>> For example, there was a remix of the Truth Happens video that was put >>> in with some very questionable material. It was offensive. Due to the >>> copyright (back then we used copyright), we were able to go after that >>> video and, I assume, have it taken it down. >>> >> >> If you allow people to create remixes, they will create some bad remixes >> but so what? > I agree. >> I know of exactly one example of such a thing tnat that is >> one you are citing here, in how many years of Red Hat putting out videos >> like this? > Absolutely. >> The example also shows that people who actually go about >> creating such bad remixes don't have a damn about copyright or >> licensing. > Yep. >> They just will do it and I am pretty sure I can find a copy >> of that video regardless of what Red Hat does at this point. >> >> > I've no doubt you can. >> Look at this this way: Red Hat releases tens of thousands of lines of >> code and content (such as documentation or even fonts) under various >> free and open source licenses. It is possible and even likely that >> someone will add a bad patch to what Red Hat has released or even fork >> it on occasions. It doesn't negate the benefits at all. >> >> Rahul >> > Well this can go on all day long. You're preaching to the choir. > > As I've said, time and time again, I agree. I absolutely agree. I've > been talking to our legal department and we'll have something figured > out very soon regarding this. All I'm trying to say is: this is how it > is right now. We've made good progress and I'm just trying to explain > why it's this way. I'm not trying to defend it or attack it. > > That said, I hope we can figure out a way to do this! > Okay, we heard (thanks Rahul and Colby). Going forward, Red Hat videos will provide contact information for permissions, so people who want to use our videos in ways other than what the current CC licensing allows will know who to ask. For now, if you're interested in doing translations of Paul's stunning Stanislavskian performance illustrating the development path of software (or using it in some other way - the devil is whispering on my shoulder), write to messer at redhat.com. Pam Chestek Sr. IP Attorney x44473 "They sure keep me on my toes." From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 12:32:14 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:32:14 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: New blog post In-Reply-To: <4AD62E36.1080909@redhat.com> References: <20091006234732.GO15104@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ACC3D10.3070109@fedoraproject.org> <20091007131126.GH28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ACC95C3.1090303@fedoraproject.org> <4ACCC05A.5060109@redhat.com> <4ACCC39C.30708@fedoraproject.org> <4ACCE7A8.7060104@redhat.com> <4ACD3E95.7070706@fedoraproject.org> <4ACDF716.9040802@redhat.com> <4AD62E36.1080909@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091015123214.GE3348@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 04:01:58PM -0400, Pamela Chestek wrote: > Okay, we heard (thanks Rahul and Colby). Going forward, Red Hat > videos will provide contact information for permissions, so people > who want to use our videos in ways other than what the current CC > licensing allows will know who to ask. For now, if you're > interested in doing translations of Paul's stunning Stanislavskian > performance illustrating the development path of software (or using > it in some other way - the devil is whispering on my shoulder), > write to messer at redhat.com. Just to be fair to Constantine Seregeivich, my acting is more influenced by his younger brother Drugo. Drugo's fortunately undocumented and largely unknown school of "residual drunkenness" never really caught on in the shadow of Constantine's "spiritual realism," except maybe in the case of Steven Seagal, or possibly Gary Busey. If only I hadn't happened upon that dog-eared copy of "Acting: If I Can (Hic!) Do It, So Can You" that day in a dusty Greenwich Village bookstore.... The world rues the day. -- 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 jasonspiro4 at gmail.com Mon Oct 19 19:37:55 2009 From: jasonspiro4 at gmail.com (Jason A. Spiro) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:37:55 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] License of 2xSai family of image scaling algorithms (was: 2xSai has an unclear license ...) Message-ID: Thanks for clearing that up: it will prevent Fedora and Debian from having to spend time manually patching ScummVM and other software to remove 2xSai from them. These distros are very strict and insist that all parts of all software they ship be open-source. I did more research and I see that Super 2xSai and Super Eagle are also written by you. I either didn't know this fact, or forgot it when I emailed you. Do you also hereby release all versions of them, old and new, and any other scaling algorithms you've written (if any others exist) under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or (at the users' option) any later version? On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Derek Liauw wrote: > To whomever it may concern, > > Given the confusion (see mail history) on some license issue I wrote some time ago. > > I hereby release all versions of 2xSai, old and new, under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or (at your option) any later version. > > I did in fact give the ZSNES and probably some other projects permission a long time ago (don't remember exactly when, but probably when it was either first featured or it went from closed source -> GPL), but I guess it wasn't documented as such in the history. > > For future reference you probably can ping me. > > [d][e][r][e][k][.][l][i][a][u][w][@][g][m][a][i][l][.][c][o][m] > > Remove brackets... > > --- On Tue, 10/13/09, Jason A. Spiro wrote: > >> From: Jason A. Spiro >> Subject: Re: 2xSai has an unclear license and may be removed from a number of ?programs in Fedora Linux >> To: "Derek Liauw" , "Derek Liauw Kie Fa" , "Robert J. Ohannessian" >> Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 4:00 AM >> Thanks for your reply Derek. >> >> 1. >> >> What's your new email address? >> > I don't check this e-mail often but it's still "in use". Now if yahoo had a forward feature I would use it, but alas... > >> 2. >> >> It would be very helpful if I could write to that email >> address and CC >> a public mailing list.? This might cause you to get >> more email about >> 2xSaI.? [ You don't have to reply to all the emails; >> if need be, you >> can just reply with the three words "Sorry, I'm busy". :) >> ]? May I >> please do that CC'ing, even though your new email address >> will then >> become public? >> >> 3. >> >> Can I forward emails we have sent to each other to public >> mailing >> lists or forums? >> >> 4. >> >> I looked for a public Snes9x source repository but its repo >> is >> actually nonpublic, and Snes9x is under a "non-commercial >> use only" >> freeware license.[1]? In zsnes's public repo 2xsai.cpp >> is there[2] in >> the "deleted files" section of /src/video, but there's no >> comment, >> even in the revision log[3], that you gave this >> permission.? So I fear >> that people will incorrectly think ZSNES relicensed your >> code without >> your permission.? Plus, there are multiple versions of >> 2xSaI floating >> around. >> >> Considering both these points, I think the best thing to do >> is to >> reply to this message with a permission notice. >> Please CC it to a >> public mailing list like fedora-legal-list at redhat.com >> or >> debian-legal at lists.debian.org. >> Either one is fine, but pick only one. >> ?Pick according to your distro preference, or pick >> fedora-legal-list >> if you don't care.? Write the words "I hereby release >> all versions of >> 2xSai, old and new, under the GNU General Public License, >> version 2 or >> (at your option) any later version". >> >> Kind regards, >> -Jason >> >> ^? [1].? http://www.snes9x.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=4334 >> ^? [2].? http://zsnes.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/zsnes/zsnes/src/video/?hideattic=0 >> ^? [3].? http://zsnes.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/zsnes/zsnes/src/video/2xsai.cpp?hideattic=0&view=log >> >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Derek Liauw >> wrote: >> > Wow, >> > >> > It's been at least 11 years since I wrote the code and >> at least 7 years since >> > I checked this e-mail lol... So just saw this >> (somewhat old) by chance. So >> > hope this still helps. >> > >> > To be honest I don't care what happens to the code >> anymore? >> > >> > Whatever .zip file is around is probably from my old >> xoom/usa.net website. >> > >> > If I remember correctly I agreed that newer versions >> of the code could be >> > released under GPL with ZSNES a long time ago (which I >> integrated and agreed >> > with the original author "_zsKnight"). >> > >> > And yes I probably neglected to update all >> pre-existing files/my abandoned >> > website and such. >> > >> > My bad, but 1. I don't think my website exists >> anymore.? 2. If it does exist >> > I probably don't know how to update it and the .zip >> distro.? 3. I haven't >> > felt like making a new website for quite a while :P 4. >> I consider ZSNES or >> > the Snes9x projects as the new "source" of the >> file(s), since those are newer >> > versions / I more or less integrated them there, and I >> assume the files >> > source files already have a GPL license. (my memory >> isn't that great). >> > >> > Hope that helps. >> > >> > --- On Thu, 7/30/09, Jason A. Spiro >> wrote: >> > >> >> From: Jason A. Spiro >> >> Subject: 2xSaI has an unclear license and may be >> removed from a number of ?programs in Fedora Linux >> >> To: "Derek Liauw Kie Fa" , >> "Derek Liauw Kie Fa" , >> "Robert J. Ohannessian" >> >> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 11:06 PM >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Derek's website[1] has a downloadable copy of >> 2xSaI >> >> available for >> >> download.? The text of the website says "GPL", >> but the >> >> readme file >> >> says something contradictory: >> >> >> >> 2xSaI Utility v0.7? ? ? ? Copyright (c) >> >> Derek Liauw Kie Fa, 1999 >> >> Comments, Suggestions, Questions, Bugs etc.: derek-liauw at usa.net >> >> http://members.xoom.com/derek_liauw/ >> >> This program is free for non-commercial use. >> >> >> >> Is the program GPLed (which means it is free to >> sell, >> >> modify, and >> >> more), or is it merely free for non-commercial >> use? >> >> If it is GPLed, >> >> then Derek, could you please update the zipfile to >> say so, >> >> and email >> >> me the updated file? >> >> >> >> If you do not answer, then Fedora Linux may have >> to rip out >> >> 2xSaI from >> >> many programs included on the Fedora DVD.? This >> will >> >> be a lot of work, >> >> and will make those programs worse.? :)? This >> is >> >> because Fedora does >> >> not allow software which is only free for >> non-commercial >> >> use on their >> >> DVD.? They require that the DVD be allowed to be >> >> sold. >> >> >> >> Note that I don't represent or volunteer for >> Fedora. >> >> I am just >> >> telling you their policies. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> -Jason Spiro >> >> >> >> ^? [1].? http://web.archive.org/elektron.its.tudelft.nl/~dalikifa/ >> > > > > -- Jason Spiro: software/web developer, packager, trainer, IT consultant. I support Linux, UNIX, Windows, and more. Contact me to discuss your needs. +1 (416) 992-3445 / www.jspiro.com From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Tue Oct 20 15:15:16 2009 From: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mamoru Tasaka) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:15:16 +0900 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FDClone license Message-ID: <4ADDD404.80406@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Hello: Now I am considering to package FDClone [1]. However FDClone uses very unique license. Note that FDClone developer says that the official license is the one written in Japanese [2] and the link [3] is only the translation into English. >From my viewpoint, the author (licensor) seems to be just saying that the author won't take any responsibility for the package if a distributor don't make any "registration", although the license text is not short. I will appreciate it if it is investigated if this license can be accepted on Fedora or not. [1] http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA012337/soft/fd/ (in Japanese) [2] http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA012337/soft/fd/LICENSES.txt [3] http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA012337/soft/fd/LICENSES.eng.txt Regards, Mamoru From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Oct 21 13:16:32 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:16:32 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FDClone license In-Reply-To: <4ADDD404.80406@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> References: <4ADDD404.80406@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Message-ID: <4ADF09B0.8040204@redhat.com> On 10/20/2009 11:15 AM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > Hello: > > Now I am considering to package FDClone [1]. However FDClone > uses very unique license. Note that FDClone developer says that the official > license is the one written in Japanese [2] and the link [3] is only > the translation into English. > >>From my viewpoint, the author (licensor) seems to be just saying that > the author won't take any responsibility for the package if > a distributor don't make any "registration", although the license text is > not short. > > I will appreciate it if it is investigated if this license can be accepted > on Fedora or not. > > [1] http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA012337/soft/fd/ (in Japanese) > [2] http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA012337/soft/fd/LICENSES.txt > [3] http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA012337/soft/fd/LICENSES.eng.txt Mamoru, The English translation is very confusing. It would be very helpful if a better translation of the original license was made available. Thanks, ~tom From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Wed Oct 21 18:30:29 2009 From: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mamoru Tasaka) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:30:29 +0900 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FDClone license In-Reply-To: <4ADF09B0.8040204@redhat.com> References: <4ADDD404.80406@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <4ADF09B0.8040204@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ADF5345.4080105@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 10/21/2009 10:16 PM +9:00: > On 10/20/2009 11:15 AM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: >> Hello: >> >> Now I am considering to package FDClone [1]. However FDClone >> uses very unique license. Note that FDClone developer says that the official >> license is the one written in Japanese [2] and the link [3] is only >> the translation into English. >> >> >From my viewpoint, the author (licensor) seems to be just saying that >> the author won't take any responsibility for the package if >> a distributor don't make any "registration", although the license text is >> not short. >> >> I will appreciate it if it is investigated if this license can be accepted >> on Fedora or not. >> >> [1] http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA012337/soft/fd/ (in Japanese) >> [2] http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA012337/soft/fd/LICENSES.txt >> [3] http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA012337/soft/fd/LICENSES.eng.txt > > Mamoru, > > The English translation is very confusing. It would be very helpful if a > better translation of the original license was made available. > > Thanks, > > ~tom Well, then I may have to try to translate Japanese license text into English, which will take some time (as I am not a laywer). Regards, Mamoru From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Thu Oct 22 21:32:25 2009 From: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mamoru Tasaka) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:32:25 +0900 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FDClone license In-Reply-To: <4ADF5345.4080105@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> References: <4ADDD404.80406@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <4ADF09B0.8040204@redhat.com> <4ADF5345.4080105@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Message-ID: <4AE0CF69.6050409@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Mamoru Tasaka wrote, at 10/22/2009 03:30 AM +9:00: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 10/21/2009 10:16 PM +9:00: >> On 10/20/2009 11:15 AM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: >>> Hello: >>> >>> Now I am considering to package FDClone [1]. However FDClone >>> uses very unique license. Note that FDClone developer says that the official >>> license is the one written in Japanese [2] and the link [3] is only >>> the translation into English. >>> >>> [1] http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA012337/soft/fd/ (in Japanese) >>> [2] http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA012337/soft/fd/LICENSES.txt >>> [3] http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA012337/soft/fd/LICENSES.eng.txt >> Mamoru, >> >> The English translation is very confusing. It would be very helpful if a >> better translation of the original license was made available. >> >> Thanks, >> >> ~tom > > Well, then I may have to try to translate Japanese license text into English, > which will take some time (as I am not a laywer). So I tried to translate the Japanese FDclone license into English by myself. I hope that my translation will be more readable. http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/FDclone/LICENSE.en.retranslated.txt Regards, Mamoru From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Oct 23 16:26:40 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:26:40 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FDClone license In-Reply-To: <4AE0CF69.6050409@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> References: <4ADDD404.80406@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <4ADF09B0.8040204@redhat.com> <4ADF5345.4080105@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <4AE0CF69.6050409@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Message-ID: <4AE1D940.1090405@redhat.com> On 10/22/2009 05:32 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > So I tried to translate the Japanese FDclone license into English > by myself. I hope that my translation will be more readable. > > http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/FDclone/LICENSE.en.retranslated.txt It is more readable, but unfortunately, it is still not clear to me whether that license is acceptable or not. Can you ask the license author the following questions? * When Fedora redistributes code (binary or source) under the FDClone license (secondary (or more) distribution or circulation), is it a requirement that Fedora _must_ follow the steps in section 9 (Procedure for Circulation Registration)? Or is it optional? I think that having the answer to those questions will help us determine whether it is acceptable or not. Thanks, ~tom From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Fri Oct 23 17:14:38 2009 From: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mamoru Tasaka) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:14:38 +0900 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] FDClone license In-Reply-To: <4AE1D940.1090405@redhat.com> References: <4ADDD404.80406@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <4ADF09B0.8040204@redhat.com> <4ADF5345.4080105@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <4AE0CF69.6050409@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <4AE1D940.1090405@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AE1E47E.9030306@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Hello: Tom "spot" Callaway wrote, at 10/24/2009 01:26 AM +9:00: > On 10/22/2009 05:32 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > >> So I tried to translate the Japanese FDclone license into English >> by myself. I hope that my translation will be more readable. >> >> http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/FDclone/LICENSE.en.retranslated.txt > > It is more readable, but unfortunately, it is still not clear to me > whether that license is acceptable or not. > > Can you ask the license author the following questions? > > * When Fedora redistributes code (binary or source) under the FDClone > license (secondary (or more) distribution or circulation), is it a > requirement that Fedora _must_ follow the steps in section 9 (Procedure > for Circulation Registration)? Or is it optional? No, this is just an option. The author (license) says that the author won't take any responsibility if no registration is made, however registration itself is optional. Regards, Mamoru From dgoodwin at redhat.com Fri Oct 23 15:28:18 2009 From: dgoodwin at redhat.com (Devan Goodwin) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:28:18 -0300 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] PBKDF2 License Check Message-ID: <20091023122818.7b9e1636@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I think this is ok but just wanted to verify, does the license for PBKDF2 sound ok for inclusion in Fedora? http://www.dlitz.net/software/python-pbkdf2/ ########################################################################### # PBKDF2.py - PKCS#5 v2.0 Password-Based Key Derivation # # Copyright (C) 2007, 2008 Dwayne C. Litzenberger # All rights reserved. # # Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its # documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, # provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that # both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in # supporting documentation. # # THE AUTHOR PROVIDES THIS SOFTWARE ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR # IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES # OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. # IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, # INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT # NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, # DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY # THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT # (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE # OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. # # Country of origin: Canada # ########################################################################### Thanks, Devan - -- Devan Goodwin Software Engineer Halifax, Canada 650.567.9039x79267 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkrhy5UACgkQAyHWaPV9my5qawCfTrS88CNFdOa1iuaHzRnXU32F Tz0AoNtest+awa0IL4Y0U/FIqf38laXV =0wkU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Oct 23 17:25:03 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:25:03 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] PBKDF2 License Check In-Reply-To: <20091023122818.7b9e1636@redhat.com> References: <20091023122818.7b9e1636@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AE1E6EF.4070305@redhat.com> On 10/23/2009 11:28 AM, Devan Goodwin wrote: > I think this is ok but just wanted to verify, does the license for > PBKDF2 sound ok for inclusion in Fedora? > > http://www.dlitz.net/software/python-pbkdf2/ > > ########################################################################### > # PBKDF2.py - PKCS#5 v2.0 Password-Based Key Derivation > # > # Copyright (C) 2007, 2008 Dwayne C. Litzenberger > # All rights reserved. > # > # Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its > # documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, > # provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that > # both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in > # supporting documentation. > # > # THE AUTHOR PROVIDES THIS SOFTWARE ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR > # IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED > WARRANTIES # OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE > ARE DISCLAIMED. # IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY > DIRECT, INDIRECT, # INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL > DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT # NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE > GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, # DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS > INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY # THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER > IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT # (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR > OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE # OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN > IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. # > # Country of origin: Canada > # > ########################################################################### This license is MIT. Free and GPL Compatible, fine for Fedora. ~spot From derekl666 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 24 00:37:48 2009 From: derekl666 at yahoo.com (Derek Liauw) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: License of 2xSai family of image scaling algorithms (was: 2xSai has an unclear license ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <944059.882.qm@web113205.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Hi Jason, I hereby release the 2xSaI, Super2xSaI, and SuperEagle algorithms, old and new, both C/C++ and assembly implementations where applicable, under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or (at the users' option) any later version. Hope that clears things up. --- On Mon, 10/19/09, Jason A. Spiro wrote: > From: Jason A. Spiro > Subject: License of 2xSai family of image scaling algorithms (was: 2xSai has an unclear license ...) > To: "Derek Liauw" > Cc: fedora-legal-list at redhat.com > Date: Monday, October 19, 2009, 12:37 PM > Thanks for clearing that up:? it > will prevent Fedora and Debian from > having to spend time manually patching ScummVM and other > software to > remove 2xSai from them.? These distros are very strict > and insist that > all parts of all software they ship be open-source. > > I did more research and I see that Super 2xSai and Super > Eagle are > also written by you.? I either didn't know this fact, > or forgot it > when I emailed you.? Do you also hereby release all > versions of them, > old and new, and any other scaling algorithms you've > written (if any > others exist) under the GNU General Public License, version > 2 or (at > the users' option) any later version? > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Derek Liauw > wrote: > > To whomever it may concern, > > > > Given the confusion (see mail history) on some license > issue I wrote some time ago. > > > > I hereby release all versions of 2xSai, old and new, > under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or (at your > option) any later version. > > > > I did in fact give the ZSNES and probably some other > projects permission a long time ago (don't remember exactly > when, but probably when it was either first featured or it > went from closed source -> GPL), but I guess it wasn't > documented as such in the history. > > > > For future reference you probably can ping me. > > > > > [d][e][r][e][k][.][l][i][a][u][w][@][g][m][a][i][l][.][c][o][m] > > > > Remove brackets... > > > > --- On Tue, 10/13/09, Jason A. Spiro > wrote: > > > >> From: Jason A. Spiro > >> Subject: Re: 2xSai has an unclear license and may > be removed from a number of ?programs in Fedora Linux > >> To: "Derek Liauw" , > "Derek Liauw Kie Fa" , > "Robert J. Ohannessian" > >> Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 4:00 AM > >> Thanks for your reply Derek. > >> > >> 1. > >> > >> What's your new email address? > >> > > I don't check this e-mail often but it's still "in > use". Now if yahoo had a forward feature I would use it, but > alas... > > > >> 2. > >> > >> It would be very helpful if I could write to that > email > >> address and CC > >> a public mailing list.? This might cause you to > get > >> more email about > >> 2xSaI.? [ You don't have to reply to all the > emails; > >> if need be, you > >> can just reply with the three words "Sorry, I'm > busy". :) > >> ]? May I > >> please do that CC'ing, even though your new email > address > >> will then > >> become public? > >> > >> 3. > >> > >> Can I forward emails we have sent to each other to > public > >> mailing > >> lists or forums? > >> > >> 4. > >> > >> I looked for a public Snes9x source repository but > its repo > >> is > >> actually nonpublic, and Snes9x is under a > "non-commercial > >> use only" > >> freeware license.[1]? In zsnes's public repo > 2xsai.cpp > >> is there[2] in > >> the "deleted files" section of /src/video, but > there's no > >> comment, > >> even in the revision log[3], that you gave this > >> permission.? So I fear > >> that people will incorrectly think ZSNES > relicensed your > >> code without > >> your permission.? Plus, there are multiple > versions of > >> 2xSaI floating > >> around. > >> > >> Considering both these points, I think the best > thing to do > >> is to > >> reply to this message with a permission notice. > >> Please CC it to a > >> public mailing list like fedora-legal-list at redhat.com > >> or > >> debian-legal at lists.debian.org. > >> Either one is fine, but pick only one. > >> ?Pick according to your distro preference, or > pick > >> fedora-legal-list > >> if you don't care.? Write the words "I hereby > release > >> all versions of > >> 2xSai, old and new, under the GNU General Public > License, > >> version 2 or > >> (at your option) any later version". > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> -Jason > >> > >> ^? [1].? http://www.snes9x.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=4334 > >> ^? [2].? http://zsnes.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/zsnes/zsnes/src/video/?hideattic=0 > >> ^? [3].? http://zsnes.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/zsnes/zsnes/src/video/2xsai.cpp?hideattic=0&view=log > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Derek Liauw > > >> wrote: > >> > Wow, > >> > > >> > It's been at least 11 years since I wrote the > code and > >> at least 7 years since > >> > I checked this e-mail lol... So just saw > this > >> (somewhat old) by chance. So > >> > hope this still helps. > >> > > >> > To be honest I don't care what happens to the > code > >> anymore? > >> > > >> > Whatever .zip file is around is probably from > my old > >> xoom/usa.net website. > >> > > >> > If I remember correctly I agreed that newer > versions > >> of the code could be > >> > released under GPL with ZSNES a long time ago > (which I > >> integrated and agreed > >> > with the original author "_zsKnight"). > >> > > >> > And yes I probably neglected to update all > >> pre-existing files/my abandoned > >> > website and such. > >> > > >> > My bad, but 1. I don't think my website > exists > >> anymore.? 2. If it does exist > >> > I probably don't know how to update it and > the .zip > >> distro.? 3. I haven't > >> > felt like making a new website for quite a > while :P 4. > >> I consider ZSNES or > >> > the Snes9x projects as the new "source" of > the > >> file(s), since those are newer > >> > versions / I more or less integrated them > there, and I > >> assume the files > >> > source files already have a GPL license. (my > memory > >> isn't that great). > >> > > >> > Hope that helps. > >> > > >> > --- On Thu, 7/30/09, Jason A. Spiro > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> From: Jason A. Spiro > >> >> Subject: 2xSaI has an unclear license and > may be > >> removed from a number of ?programs in Fedora > Linux > >> >> To: "Derek Liauw Kie Fa" , > >> "Derek Liauw Kie Fa" , > >> "Robert J. Ohannessian" > >> >> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 11:06 PM > >> >> Hi, > >> >> > >> >> Derek's website[1] has a downloadable > copy of > >> 2xSaI > >> >> available for > >> >> download.? The text of the website says > "GPL", > >> but the > >> >> readme file > >> >> says something contradictory: > >> >> > >> >> 2xSaI Utility v0.7? ? ? ? Copyright > (c) > >> >> Derek Liauw Kie Fa, 1999 > >> >> Comments, Suggestions, Questions, Bugs > etc.: derek-liauw at usa.net > >> >> http://members.xoom.com/derek_liauw/ > >> >> This program is free for non-commercial > use. > >> >> > >> >> Is the program GPLed (which means it is > free to > >> sell, > >> >> modify, and > >> >> more), or is it merely free for > non-commercial > >> use? > >> >> If it is GPLed, > >> >> then Derek, could you please update the > zipfile to > >> say so, > >> >> and email > >> >> me the updated file? > >> >> > >> >> If you do not answer, then Fedora Linux > may have > >> to rip out > >> >> 2xSaI from > >> >> many programs included on the Fedora > DVD.? This > >> will > >> >> be a lot of work, > >> >> and will make those programs worse.? > :)? This > >> is > >> >> because Fedora does > >> >> not allow software which is only free > for > >> non-commercial > >> >> use on their > >> >> DVD.? They require that the DVD be > allowed to be > >> >> sold. > >> >> > >> >> Note that I don't represent or volunteer > for > >> Fedora. > >> >> I am just > >> >> telling you their policies. > >> >> > >> >> Kind regards, > >> >> -Jason Spiro > >> >> > >> >> ^? [1].? http://web.archive.org/elektron.its.tudelft.nl/~dalikifa/ > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Jason Spiro: software/web developer, packager, trainer, IT > consultant. > I support Linux, UNIX, Windows, and more. Contact me to > discuss your needs. > +1 (416) 992-3445 / www.jspiro.com >