legal October 2009

legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

13 participants
14 discussions

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CAcert.org license
by Tom Callaway 12 Feb '16

12 Feb '16

On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 23:03 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote: > > >>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway <Tom> writes: > > > > TC> Given that it does not give permission for us to redistribute (the > > TC> cornerstone requirement for Content licenses), this license is not > > TC> acceptable for Fedora. > > > > I guess I'm glad I looked before approving the package, but I have to > > wonder: Do the cacert folks actually want anyone to use their > > certificates? I mean, this prevents basically everyone from using > > them, because they can't come with the OS or the browser. > > Personally, the more I read the document, the more I'm confused. > > "You may NOT distribute certificates or root keys under this > licence"... does this mean we can distribute under a different license? Well, sortof. The wording here is strange because you can get a different license from the CA issuer. We can't just pick a license, but the CA issuer might be willing to give us a different one. > Would it be worth getting in contact with CAcert.org in order to try > and have them allow us to redistribute the root certs under conditions > which are acceptable to the Fedora Project? Probably, yes. :) ~spot

4 6

License of 2xSai family of image scaling algorithms (was: 2xSai has an unclear license ...)
by Jason A. Spiro 23 Oct '09

23 Oct '09

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 <derekl666(a)yahoo.com> 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][(a)][g][m][a][i][l][.][c][o][m] > > Remove brackets... > > --- On Tue, 10/13/09, Jason A. Spiro <jasonspiro4(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> From: Jason A. Spiro <jasonspiro4(a)gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: 2xSai has an unclear license and may be removed from a number of programs in Fedora Linux >> To: "Derek Liauw" <derekl666(a)yahoo.com>, "Derek Liauw Kie Fa" <derek-liauw(a)usa.net>, "Robert J. Ohannessian" <voidstar(a)ifrance.com> >> 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(a)redhat.com >> or >> debian-legal(a)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?hid… >> >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Derek Liauw <derekl666(a)yahoo.com> >> 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 <jasonspiro4(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> From: Jason A. Spiro <jasonspiro4(a)gmail.com> >> >> 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(a)usa.net>, >> "Derek Liauw Kie Fa" <derekl666(a)yahoo.com>, >> "Robert J. Ohannessian" <voidstar(a)ifrance.com> >> >> 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(a)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

2 1

PBKDF2 License Check
by Devan Goodwin 23 Oct '09

23 Oct '09

-----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 <dlitz(a)dlitz.net> # 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 <dgoodwin(a)redhat.com> 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-----

2 1

FDClone license
by Mamoru Tasaka 23 Oct '09

23 Oct '09

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

2 5

Re: New blog post
by Pam Chestek 15 Oct '09

15 Oct '09

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(a)redhat.com. Pam Chestek Sr. IP Attorney x44473 "They sure keep me on my toes."

2 1

4-clause BSD issue
by Ziyad Saeed 14 Oct '09

14 Oct '09

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.

3 4

OK
by GEORGIOS GIANNAKIS 14 Oct '09

14 Oct '09

2 1

Re: 2xSai has an unclear license and may be removed from a number of programs in Fedora Linux
by Derek Liauw 13 Oct '09

13 Oct '09

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][(a)][g][m][a][i][l][.][c][o][m] Remove brackets... --- On Tue, 10/13/09, Jason A. Spiro <jasonspiro4(a)gmail.com> wrote: > From: Jason A. Spiro <jasonspiro4(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: 2xSai has an unclear license and may be removed from a number of programs in Fedora Linux > To: "Derek Liauw" <derekl666(a)yahoo.com>, "Derek Liauw Kie Fa" <derek-liauw(a)usa.net>, "Robert J. Ohannessian" <voidstar(a)ifrance.com> > 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(a)redhat.com > or > debian-legal(a)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?hid… > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Derek Liauw <derekl666(a)yahoo.com> > 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 <jasonspiro4(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> From: Jason A. Spiro <jasonspiro4(a)gmail.com> > >> 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(a)usa.net>, > "Derek Liauw Kie Fa" <derekl666(a)yahoo.com>, > "Robert J. Ohannessian" <voidstar(a)ifrance.com> > >> 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(a)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/ >

1 0

Re: Fwd: Fedora Blogs
by Tom Callaway 12 Oct '09

12 Oct '09

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

1 0

Helping the Fan project relicense from AFL
by Michel Alexandre Salim 12 Oct '09

12 Oct '09

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

2 1

Re: New blog post
by Rahul Sundaram 07 Oct '09

07 Oct '09

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

1 0

Re: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information
by Paul W. Frields 07 Oct '09

07 Oct '09

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 <legalnotice> 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.… > > [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

4 8

Re: New blog post
by Tom Callaway 07 Oct '09

07 Oct '09

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

1 0

Re: New blog post
by Rahul Sundaram 07 Oct '09

07 Oct '09

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

1 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

legal October 2009