TeX Live 2009 and Ruby 1.9
JBoss[1] is still a *big* deficit. Potential for f14/15 ?
2010/5/30 Xose Vazquez Perez xose.vazquez@gmail.com:
TeX Live 2009 and Ruby 1.9
JBoss[1] is still a *big* deficit. Potential for f14/15 ?
For Texlive 2010 and Ruby 1.9,See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/TeXLive http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Ruby_1.9.1
On 05/30/2010 04:26 AM, Chen Lei wrote:
Current status
* Targeted release: Fedora 13 * Last updated: Sat Jan 9 2009 * Percentage of completion: 60%
Current status
* Targeted release: Fedora 14 * Last updated: 2009-10-22 * Percentage of completion: 60%
That info is outdated.
On 05/29/2010 07:25 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
JBoss[1] is still a *big* deficit. Potential for f14/15 ?
I'm pretty sure JBoss is still a no-go because of poor licensing, specifically:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479598
~spot
On 06/01/2010 05:09 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 05/29/2010 07:25 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
JBoss[1] is still a *big* deficit. Potential for f14/15 ?
I'm pretty sure JBoss is still a no-go because of poor licensing, specifically:
That is a nonsense.
JBoss is stalled because it depends on a package with:
- incompatible license - six years old - dead upstream
:-?
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 16:33 +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
JBoss is stalled because it depends on a package with:
- incompatible license
- six years old
- dead upstream
How is this different from what is on the bug report ?
Pierre
On 06/03/2010 10:33 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
On 06/01/2010 05:09 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 05/29/2010 07:25 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
JBoss[1] is still a *big* deficit. Potential for f14/15 ?
I'm pretty sure JBoss is still a no-go because of poor licensing, specifically:
That is a nonsense.
JBoss is stalled because it depends on a package with:
- incompatible license
- six years old
- dead upstream
:-?
This is true (well, the problem is that there is no applicable and valid license, not so much that it is incompatible), no matter how absurd it might seem.
In general, Java licensing is... poor at best. This is admittedly a rather confusing case, but still.
~spot
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/03/2010 10:33 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
On 06/01/2010 05:09 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 05/29/2010 07:25 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
JBoss[1] is still a *big* deficit. Potential for f14/15 ?
I'm pretty sure JBoss is still a no-go because of poor licensing, specifically:
That is a nonsense.
JBoss is stalled because it depends on a package with:
- incompatible license
- six years old
- dead upstream
:-?
This is true (well, the problem is that there is no applicable and valid license, not so much that it is incompatible), no matter how absurd it might seem.
In general, Java licensing is... poor at best. This is admittedly a rather confusing case, but still.
This seems really dangerous. If JBoss has an unclear legal status due to this, perhaps aopalliance needs to be reimplemented from scratch, or JBoss should not depend on it?
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim michael.silvanus@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
This is true (well, the problem is that there is no applicable and valid license, not so much that it is incompatible), no matter how absurd it might seem.
In general, Java licensing is... poor at best. This is admittedly a rather confusing case, but still.
This seems really dangerous. If JBoss has an unclear legal status due to this, perhaps aopalliance needs to be reimplemented from scratch, or JBoss should not depend on it?
And slightly weird that it's okay for Red Hat to distribute it themselves, both commercially and as open source from jboss.org, but it's questionable for Fedora.
On 06/03/2010 11:54 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim michael.silvanus@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
This is true (well, the problem is that there is no applicable and valid license, not so much that it is incompatible), no matter how absurd it might seem.
In general, Java licensing is... poor at best. This is admittedly a rather confusing case, but still.
This seems really dangerous. If JBoss has an unclear legal status due to this, perhaps aopalliance needs to be reimplemented from scratch, or JBoss should not depend on it?
And slightly weird that it's okay for Red Hat to distribute it themselves, both commercially and as open source from jboss.org, but it's questionable for Fedora.
I can't speak on what Red Hat does on a larger scale. I do know that it is important to me and Fedora that we do it properly, or not at all.
~spot
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 12:29:15PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I can't speak on what Red Hat does on a larger scale. I do know that it is important to me and Fedora that we do it properly, or not at all.
Yes please. This is why I trust Fedora.
On 06/03/2010 01:01 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 12:29:15PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I can't speak on what Red Hat does on a larger scale. I do know that it is important to me and Fedora that we do it properly, or not at all.
Yes please. This is why I trust Fedora.
Hear, hear. One of the thing I like best about Fedora is the staunch strictness (or strich staunchness?) where the law is concerned. I don't have to worry about going to jail for what's on my laptop.
Er, the software, anyway. ;)
-J
On 06/03/2010 09:59 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
I can't speak on what Red Hat does on a larger scale. I do know that it is important to me and Fedora that we do it properly, or not at all.
Yep. Red Hat can do what is necessary for the commercial success of free software. Meanwhile, Fedora's focus on long term sustainability within a community is a breath of fresh air. You play by the well defined rules or stay out of it. The expectations are clear.
Rahul
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 12:29 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 06/03/2010 11:54 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
And slightly weird that it's okay for Red Hat to distribute it themselves, both commercially and as open source from jboss.org, but it's questionable for Fedora.
I can't speak on what Red Hat does on a larger scale. I do know that it is important to me and Fedora that we do it properly, or not at all.
If everyone else is distributing JBoss, though, that calls into question whether it's Fedora doing it "properly".
Worrying about a set of rights which are unwaivable seems on the face of it to be exhibiting an abundance of over-caution, and it seems particularly sad that Fedora is losing out having to refrain from distributing another Red Hat-sponsored project.
Cheers
Alex.
-- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com
On 06/03/2010 02:31 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
If everyone else is distributing JBoss, though, that calls into question whether it's Fedora doing it "properly".
Worrying about a set of rights which are unwaivable seems on the face of it to be exhibiting an abundance of over-caution, and it seems particularly sad that Fedora is losing out having to refrain from distributing another Red Hat-sponsored project.
You might feel that way, but the simple fact is that French citizens can not abandon copyright (aka put works into the Public Domain). This is the only license that we've been given, but since it is not valid, we can't use it. Without a license, we cannot include this in Fedora, because we have none of the rights required for Free Software.
The fact that it comes from "another Red Hat-sponsored project" is wholly irrelevant.
The argument that "everyone else is doing it, so it must be fine" is also completely false. As my mother eloquently put it to me at age 6, "If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?".
The bigger concern is that this code is abandonware. In an active project, this would already be resolved. It also illustrates the point of being sure that projects have valid licensing from the start.
~spot
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 15:09 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
The argument that "everyone else is doing it, so it must be fine" is also completely false. As my mother eloquently put it to me at age 6, "If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?".
That's not the argument I'm putting forward.
The "French cannot waive copyright" argument brings you to the conclusion you stated; "[The license] is not valid, we can't use it".
That same argument holds, as far as I can see, for every other distributor.
So effectively we're arguing that everyone else, Red Hat included, is either oblivious to the legal risk or they looked at it and came to the wrong conclusion. All of them.
I'm not saying that's true one way or another, but it would seem to me that at least getting a second opinion would be worthwhile, because Fedora's legal resource appears to be making some pretty extraordinary claims.
And if it is true, I would bet there are significantly more problems that aopalliance, since there are very few [no] licenses which deal with EUisms like moral rights, database rights, etc...
Cheers
Alex.
-- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com
On 06/03/2010 03:24 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
That's not the argument I'm putting forward.
The "French cannot waive copyright" argument brings you to the conclusion you stated; "[The license] is not valid, we can't use it".
That same argument holds, as far as I can see, for every other distributor.
Yes, but what Red Hat (or every other distributor) does aside from Fedora is not my responsibility.
So effectively we're arguing that everyone else, Red Hat included, is either oblivious to the legal risk or they looked at it and came to the wrong conclusion. All of them.
More likely is that they did not look, or they are unaware of the complexities around Public Domain.
I'm not saying that's true one way or another, but it would seem to me that at least getting a second opinion would be worthwhile, because Fedora's legal resource appears to be making some pretty extraordinary claims.
They're not so extraordinary, and yes, I did get second and third opinions on this. In Europe, the idea of moral rights and the inherent conflict with Public Domain declarations (where a copyright holder explicitly abandons copyright) is well known. As I have pointed out, this is one of the main reasons why the CC-0 license was drafted, to provide the same functional intended end result of a Public Domain declaration (users can do whatever they want with it) while avoiding the conflict of moral rights (except as it would conflict with the moral rights of the copyright holder).
The fact that the Creative Commons created a license _explicitly_ to work around this issue provides proof that this issue is legitimate and valid.
And if it is true, I would bet there are significantly more problems that aopalliance, since there are very few [no] licenses which deal with EUisms like moral rights, database rights, etc...
Not so much. Public Domain declarations are special. Normal FOSS licenses don't hit this, because they are a list of what rights you have for the works they cover. A Public Domain declaration is the abandonment of all copyright, and accordingly, the ability for anyone to do _ANYTHING_ with that work. It isn't even a license.
The fact that Public Domain declarations are possible in some jurisdictions (including the United States) further confuses this, because if the aopalliance copyright holders were American instead of French, we would not have this problem. Arguably, someone with a limited understanding of the complexities around Public Domain declarations might see the words "in the Public Domain" and just assume everything was kosher. We know better, and we check all Public Domain declarations extra carefully. Which is how we caught it.
~spot
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 08:24:33PM +0100, Alex Hudson wrote:
So effectively we're arguing that everyone else, Red Hat included, is either oblivious to the legal risk or they looked at it and came to the wrong conclusion. All of them.
This isn't the only time it's happened. Debian still distributes 'cdecl'. Fedora has unfortunately had to drop this very useful package because (whatever anyone else claims) the license is *not* clearly free[1].
Rich.
[1] http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.c/browse_thread/thread/44696488be...
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
You might feel that way, but the simple fact is that French citizens can not abandon copyright (aka put works into the Public Domain). This is the only license that we've been given, but since it is not valid, we can't use it. Without a license, we cannot include this in Fedora, because we have none of the rights required for Free Software.
There are plenty of projects partly or entirely written by Europeans which are supposedly "Public Domain", which all have this issue. A lot of that code is already in Fedora. Even projects under the GPL or some other copyright license may be incorporating such code, without even mentioning it, since there's no requirement to mention use of public domain code. It feels odd to single out one such project.
Plus, since Red Hat is in the US, doesn't US copyright law apply? What I have read everywhere is that it's the copyright law of the distributor's country which prevails, not the one of the author's country.
Have you talked to Red Hat Legal about this? They OKed distributing that code along with JBoss, didn't they?
Kevin Kofler
On 06/03/2010 10:35 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
You might feel that way, but the simple fact is that French citizens can not abandon copyright (aka put works into the Public Domain). This is the only license that we've been given, but since it is not valid, we can't use it. Without a license, we cannot include this in Fedora, because we have none of the rights required for Free Software.
There are plenty of projects partly or entirely written by Europeans which are supposedly "Public Domain", which all have this issue. A lot of that code is already in Fedora. Even projects under the GPL or some other copyright license may be incorporating such code, without even mentioning it, since there's no requirement to mention use of public domain code. It feels odd to single out one such project.
I am not in any way singling out one such project. If you have examples, please highlight them, and we will address them as well.
~spot
Dne 3.6.2010 21:09, Tom "spot" Callaway napsal(a):
You might feel that way, but the simple fact is that French citizens can not abandon copyright (aka put works into the Public Domain).
Do we have some better authority on this than Wikipedia? In my understanding (in a dim memory, now long-time inactive lawyer), dual character of copyright under the copyright law in the continental law tradition could mean, that waiver of copyright is partially invalid (in the part concerned with personal rights of owner), but perfectly valid in the right to exploit economical character of the work, which is all what matters here anyway. I would really like to see some opinion of the real European IP law on the matter. Does anybody have URL?
Matěj
On 06/04/2010 12:26 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 3.6.2010 21:09, Tom "spot" Callaway napsal(a):
You might feel that way, but the simple fact is that French citizens can not abandon copyright (aka put works into the Public Domain).
Do we have some better authority on this than Wikipedia? In my understanding (in a dim memory, now long-time inactive lawyer), dual character of copyright under the copyright law in the continental law tradition could mean, that waiver of copyright is partially invalid (in the part concerned with personal rights of owner), but perfectly valid in the right to exploit economical character of the work, which is all what matters here anyway. I would really like to see some opinion of the real European IP law on the matter. Does anybody have URL?
Matěj, as I'm sure you know, we could find a lawyer who would tell us just about anything we wanted to hear. I consulted with Red Hat Legal, and the conclusion that we came to was that it was not possible for the copyright holders to abandon their copyright on this work due to their jurisdiction, thus, we cannot include it as-is and need to clarify a license for the work.
~spot
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
Matěj Cepl asked for
I would really like to see some opinion of the real European IP law on the matter. Does anybody have URL?
and received a slam at lawyers in the open to the reply.
Matěj, as I'm sure you know, we could find a lawyer who would tell us just about anything we wanted to hear.
sad, sad
-- Russ herrold
Dne 4.6.2010 22:10, Tom "spot" Callaway napsal(a):
Matěj, as I'm sure you know, we could find a lawyer who would tell us
I said European IP lawyer, but I will let it be.
Matěj
Can anyone contact members in AOP alliance directly, maybe it's helpful?
e.g. Cédric Beus http://beust.com/weblog/ (http://twitter.com/cbeust)
All members info see http://aopalliance.sourceforge.net/members.html
Regards, Chen Lei
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 16:10 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
Matěj, as I'm sure you know, we could find a lawyer who would tell us just about anything we wanted to hear. I consulted with Red Hat Legal, and the conclusion that we came to was that it was not possible for the copyright holders to abandon their copyright on this work due to their jurisdiction, thus, we cannot include it as-is and need to clarify a license for the work.
So Red Hat's lawyers know that Red Hat are distributing something which they have no license for, so either they haven't passed that message on or Red Hat have decided they don't care?*
Bizarre.
Cheers
Alex.
*. This is a rhetorical question.
-- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com
"AH" == Alex Hudson fedora@alexhudson.com writes:
AH> So Red Hat's lawyers know that Red Hat are distributing something AH> which they have no license for, so either they haven't passed that AH> message on or Red Hat have decided they don't care?*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
- J<
tor 2010-06-03 klockan 19:31 +0100 skrev Alex Hudson:
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 12:29 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 06/03/2010 11:54 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
And slightly weird that it's okay for Red Hat to distribute it themselves, both commercially and as open source from jboss.org, but it's questionable for Fedora.
I can't speak on what Red Hat does on a larger scale. I do know that it is important to me and Fedora that we do it properly, or not at all.
If everyone else is distributing JBoss, though, that calls into question whether it's Fedora doing it "properly".
Worrying about a set of rights which are unwaivable seems on the face of it to be exhibiting an abundance of over-caution, and it seems particularly sad that Fedora is losing out having to refrain from distributing another Red Hat-sponsored project.
It's not sad. It means the Fedora project will do the work to clean up a mess which most other don't even see. It's problematic, in a way, sure, but "sad" is really not the right word.
/Alexander
-
Alex Hudson -
Alexander Boström -
Chen Lei -
Iain Arnell -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Jon Ciesla -
Kevin Kofler -
Matej Cepl -
Matthew Miller -
Michel Alexandre Salim -
Pierre-Yves Chibon -
R P Herrold -
Rahul Sundaram -
Richard W.M. Jones -
Tom Callaway -
Xose Vazquez Perez