<html><body><div>Wouldn't the term "Some Rights Reserved" work in its place? It still looks official (which is why I assume it is there), and I know the Creative Commons Project loves that wording. </div><div> </div><div>Justin "threethirty" O'Brien Member 0 [NHI] <a href="http://numberedhumanindustries.com">http://numberedhumanindustries.com</a> @threethirty - twitter/identi.ca/jaiku ---------------- Pod/Ogg Casts ----------------- LinuxCranks - <a href="http://linuxcranks.info">http://linuxcranks.info</a> Free Linux Helpline - <a href="http://freelinuxhelpline.net">http://freelinuxhelpline.net</a> The Linux Link Tech Show - <a href="http://tllts.org">http://tllts.org</a> Something Kinda Techy - <a href="http://somethingkindatechy.com">http://somethingkindatechy.com</a> Hacker Public Radio - <a href="http://hackerpublicradio.org">http://hackerpublicradio.org</a> ------------------------------------------------ ** This message is intentionally short please see <a href="http://three.sentenc.es/">http://three.sentenc.es/</a> for explanation.** </div> <blockquote webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: verdana;"> <div > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [SPAM] Fedora-legal-list Digest, Vol 29, Issue 3 From: fedora-legal-list-request@redhat.com Date: Wed, November 04, 2009 12:00 pm To: fedora-legal-list@redhat.com Send Fedora-legal-list mailing list submissions to fedora-legal-list@redhat.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit <a target="_blank" href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list</a> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to fedora-legal-list-request@redhat.com You can reach the person managing the list at fedora-legal-list-owner@redhat.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Fedora-legal-list digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Hopefully simple GPL licensing question re Netomata (David Nalley) 2. Re: Hopefully simple GPL licensing question re Netomata (Tom "spot" Callaway) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:25:01 -0500 From: David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Hopefully simple GPL licensing question re Netomata To: fedora-legal-list@redhat.com Message-ID: <d6e6dfeb0911031325h57863675r59ddf5ebe233406d@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 So I started looking at packaging Netomata ( <a target="_blank" href="http://www.netomata.com/products/ncg">http://www.netomata.com/products/ncg</a> ) and came across something that raises a flag. The author is also at a conference with me this week, so I figured the face time would be a good time to request a change if something is required. The question I have, is does the 'All Rights Reserved' in each source file conflict with the GPLv3 that they claim the package is released under, and is it a problem wrt Packaging Guidelines. In the header of each source file appears: # $Id: ncg 335 2009-04-13 22:40:31Z brent $ # Copyright (C) 2008, 2009 Netomata, Inc. All Rights Reserved. # Please review accompanying 'LICENSE' file or # <a target="_blank" href="http://www.netomata.com/docs/licenses/ncg">http://www.netomata.com/docs/licenses/ncg</a> for important notices, # disclaimers, and license terms. There is no mention of GPLv$ in the source itself. LICENSE contains: Netomata Config Generator (NCG) License ======================================= Copyright (C) 2008, 2009 Netomata, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Netomata Config Generator (NCG) is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 3, as published by the Free Software Foundation. Netomata Config Generator (NCG) is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND (without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE), either express or implied, unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing. See the GNU General Public License, version 3, for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License, version 3, along with Netomata Config Generator (NCG), in the file named "COPYING". If not, see <<a target="_blank" href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt</a>>. For any other questions or comments, please contact us at: Netomata, Inc. 2601C Blanding Ave., #327 Alameda, CA 94501 USA Web <a target="_blank" href="http://www.netomata.com/">http://www.netomata.com/</a> Phone +1 510 355 0123 Fax +1 510 355 0134 Email license@netomata.com and of course 'COPYING' is contained in source and has GPLv3 in it. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:42:22 -0500 From: "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Hopefully simple GPL licensing question re Netomata To: David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> Cc: fedora-legal-list@redhat.com Message-ID: <4AF0A3BE.7080609@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 11/03/2009 04:25 PM, David Nalley wrote: > So I started looking at packaging Netomata ( > <a target="_blank" href="http://www.netomata.com/products/ncg">http://www.netomata.com/products/ncg</a> ) and came across something that > raises a flag. The author is also at a conference with me this week, > so I figured the face time would be a good time to request a change if > something is required. > > The question I have, is does the 'All Rights Reserved' in each source > file conflict with the GPLv3 that they claim the package is released > under, and is it a problem wrt Packaging Guidelines. Well, they really should drop the "All Rights Reserved", it is no longer necessary (see: <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/All_rights_reserved">http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/All_rights_reserved</a>). It is a potential source of confusion, since the GPL grants some rights to the user which are normally only available to the copyright holder. However, strictly speaking, it is not a problem for Fedora in this case, since the "all rights reserved", just means that the copyright holder hasn't waived those rights (and the GPLv3 doesn't actually waive any rights). It's a balancing act though, which is why I'd strongly recommend that they drop the "All Rights Reserved" wording to eliminate all confusion. ~spot ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com <a target="_blank" href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list</a> End of Fedora-legal-list Digest, Vol 29, Issue 3 ************************************************ </div> </blockquote></body></html>