Licensing question: BSD with advertising + GPL

[Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus]

The licensing list [1] states that the license "BSD with advertising" is
not compatible with GPLv2/v3. But what means compatible? For example, I
would like to use/create a package for a library which is released as
"BSD with advertising". Consider an application licensed as GPLv2 which
uses the shared library. Is this allowed? In this case the library would
be licensed as "BSD with advertising" and the application which uses
that library as GPLv2. If I remember right, then there was some kind of
clause in the GPLv2/v3 license which said that even linking against such
a library is not allowed but I'm really not sure. Maybe my mind plays
tricks with me ;-)

Can someone confirm or deny this?

Regards,
Stefan

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses

[Joerg Schilling]

Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus  wrote:
> The licensing list [1] states that the license "BSD with advertising" is
> not compatible with GPLv2/v3. But what means compatible? For example, I
> would like to use/create a package for a library which is released as
> "BSD with advertising". Consider an application licensed as GPLv2 which
> uses the shared library. Is this allowed? In this case the library would
> be licensed as "BSD with advertising" and the application which uses
> that library as GPLv2. If I remember right, then there was some kind of
> clause in the GPLv2/v3 license which said that even linking against such
> a library is not allowed but I'm really not sure. Maybe my mind plays
> tricks with me ;-)

The GPLv2 permits to link against any independently developed library (which 
therefore is an independend work) regardless of the license of the library.

The legal reason for this is that the act named above does not create a derived
work but rather a "collective work" that is not restricted by the GPLv2.

If you include a library with BSD+advertising in a distro, you of course need
to advertise ;-)

Jörg

[Tom Callaway]

On 03/16/2010 07:11 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus  wrote:
> > The licensing list [1] states that the license "BSD with advertising" is
> > not compatible with GPLv2/v3. But what means compatible? For example, I
> > would like to use/create a package for a library which is released as
> > "BSD with advertising". Consider an application licensed as GPLv2 which
> > uses the shared library. Is this allowed? In this case the library would
> > be licensed as "BSD with advertising" and the application which uses
> > that library as GPLv2. If I remember right, then there was some kind of
> > clause in the GPLv2/v3 license which said that even linking against such
> > a library is not allowed but I'm really not sure. Maybe my mind plays
> > tricks with me ;-)
>
> The GPLv2 permits to link against any independently developed library (which 
> therefore is an independend work) regardless of the license of the library.

Stefan,

Please note that Mr. Schilling does not speak in any way for the Fedora
Project, and his... unique... license interpretations are not correct
for Fedora.

There is a linking incompatibility between a library with a license of
"BSD with advertising" and a binary with a license of "GPLv2" (or v3,
for that matter). You should double check that the license on that
library is actually BSD with advertising (if the copyright holder is the
Regents of the University of California, the advertising clause has been
dropped). If you can let me know which library is in use, I would be
happy to look into this for you.

If it is actually BSD with advertising, I would ask the upstream if they
would be willing to drop the advertising clause, as they may be unaware
of the problems it causes. If they are not, the alternative would be for
the copyright holder of the GPLv2'd code to add an explicit exception to
permit this scenario, and we could propose some suggested exception text
to them.

If _that_ still doesn't work, then the GPLv2 code would not be able to
be included in Fedora (assuming that it is dependent upon the BSD with
advertising library).

Thanks,

Tom Callaway, Fedora Legal

P.S. I am not a lawyer, this should not be considered legal advice. I
do, however, consult with Red Hat Legal regularly.

[Joerg Schilling]

"Tom "spot" Callaway"  wrote:
> Please note that Mr. Schilling does not speak in any way for the Fedora
> Project, and his... unique... license interpretations are not correct
> for Fedora.

Please note that I am forwarding the license interpretation of the lawyer who
counsels the OpenSource initiative.

If Fedora has a unique interpretation that differs from this interpreation,
fell free to explain it giving legal reasoning for your different interpreation. 
The legal reasoning of the lawyer that counsels the OSI can be read here:

http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf

Jörg

[Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus]

On Di, 2010-03-16 at 10:57 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/16/2010 07:11 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus  wrote:
> > > The licensing list [1] states that the license "BSD with advertising" is
> > > not compatible with GPLv2/v3. But what means compatible? For example, I
> > > would like to use/create a package for a library which is released as
> > > "BSD with advertising". Consider an application licensed as GPLv2 which
> > > uses the shared library. Is this allowed? In this case the library would
> > > be licensed as "BSD with advertising" and the application which uses
> > > that library as GPLv2. If I remember right, then there was some kind of
> > > clause in the GPLv2/v3 license which said that even linking against such
> > > a library is not allowed but I'm really not sure. Maybe my mind plays
> > > tricks with me ;-)
> >
> > The GPLv2 permits to link against any independently developed library (which 
> > therefore is an independend work) regardless of the license of the library.
>
> Stefan,
>
> Please note that Mr. Schilling does not speak in any way for the Fedora
> Project, and his... unique... license interpretations are not correct
> for Fedora.
>
> There is a linking incompatibility between a library with a license of
> "BSD with advertising" and a binary with a license of "GPLv2" (or v3,
> for that matter). You should double check that the license on that
> library is actually BSD with advertising (if the copyright holder is the
> Regents of the University of California, the advertising clause has been
> dropped).

This was exactly the same I had in mind. I just wasn't sure because I
heard the same when I attended a conference presentation but didn't get
anything written down. So I was unsure.
> If you can let me know which library is in use, I would be
> happy to look into this for you.

The library I'm talking about is OpenDKIM (actually it's kind of a
daemon and a library, but I want to use the library from GPLv2 code)
which uses at the moment a 4-clause-BSD license:
http://www.opendkim.org/license.html
A confirmation if it is really a BSD-with-advertisement license is very
welcomed.
> If it is actually BSD with advertising, I would ask the upstream if they
> would be willing to drop the advertising clause, as they may be unaware
> of the problems it causes. If they are not, the alternative would be for
> the copyright holder of the GPLv2'd code to add an explicit exception to
> permit this scenario, and we could propose some suggested exception text
> to them.

I already contacted upstream and now I'm waiting for their response. I
also would like to package OpenDKIM for Fedora but I think as long as
upstream uses BSD-with-advertising it does not make much sense. It would
hurt Fedora more than help, I guess.

Thanks for your message,
Stefan

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> > > > > "SSF" == Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus  writes:

SSF> The library I'm talking about is OpenDKIM (actually it's kind of a
SSF> daemon and a library, but I want to use the library from GPLv2
SSF> code) which uses at the moment a 4-clause-BSD license:
SSF> http://www.opendkim.org/license.html

"
All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgement:

This product includes software developed by The OpenDKIM Project and its
contributors. 
"

SSF> A confirmation if it is really a BSD-with-advertisement license is
SSF> very welcomed.

That's the advertisement clause, verbatim (excepting the name change, of
course).  The British spelling of "acknowledgment" is odd but present in
the original UCB version.  I never noticed that before.

Looking at the license at that URL, I see there's also the question of
the involvement of the sendmail license which has some rather odd GPL
compatibility issues.

- J<

[Tom Callaway]

On 03/16/2010 03:40 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > "SSF" == Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus  writes:
>
> SSF> The library I'm talking about is OpenDKIM (actually it's kind of a
> SSF> daemon and a library, but I want to use the library from GPLv2
> SSF> code) which uses at the moment a 4-clause-BSD license:
> SSF> http://www.opendkim.org/license.html
>
> "
> All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
> must display the following acknowledgement:
>
> This product includes software developed by The OpenDKIM Project and its
> contributors. 
> "
>
> SSF> A confirmation if it is really a BSD-with-advertisement license is
> SSF> very welcomed.
>
> That's the advertisement clause, verbatim (excepting the name change, of
> course).  The British spelling of "acknowledgment" is odd but present in
> the original UCB version.  I never noticed that before.
>
> Looking at the license at that URL, I see there's also the question of
> the involvement of the sendmail license which has some rather odd GPL
> compatibility issues.

Yeah... but since the copyright holder is Sendmail, Inc on those files,
we can assume that the Sendmail License is GPL compatible here (I'm also
going to assume that any changes made by the The OpenDKIM Project to
files originally under the Sendmail License are done under the BSD with
advertising license).

If I were you, I would ask the OpenDKIM project if they would be willing
to drop the advertising clause. (Or, if you'd like, I will ask them on
your behalf, just let me know).

~spot

[Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus]

On Di, 2010-03-16 at 16:05 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/16/2010 03:40 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

[...]
> > Looking at the license at that URL, I see there's also the question of
> > the involvement of the sendmail license which has some rather odd GPL
> > compatibility issues.
>
> Yeah... but since the copyright holder is Sendmail, Inc on those files,
> we can assume that the Sendmail License is GPL compatible here (I'm also
> going to assume that any changes made by the The OpenDKIM Project to
> files originally under the Sendmail License are done under the BSD with
> advertising license).

That's true. OpenDKIM is a fork of a project called dkim-milter which is
orphaned at the moment and was developed by employees of Sendmail Inc.
and therefore shouldn't be a license problem. Only the changes made to
the forked project are licensed as BSD-with-advertisement.
> If I were you, I would ask the OpenDKIM project if they would be willing
> to drop the advertising clause.

I already sent an email to the project maintainer and hope to hear from
him soon.

Regards,
Stefan

[Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus]

On Di, 2010-03-16 at 21:33 +0100, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> On Di, 2010-03-16 at 16:05 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On 03/16/2010 03:40 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > Looking at the license at that URL, I see there's also the question of
> > > the involvement of the sendmail license which has some rather odd GPL
> > > compatibility issues.
> >
> > Yeah... but since the copyright holder is Sendmail, Inc on those files,
> > we can assume that the Sendmail License is GPL compatible here (I'm also
> > going to assume that any changes made by the The OpenDKIM Project to
> > files originally under the Sendmail License are done under the BSD with
> > advertising license).
>
> That's true. OpenDKIM is a fork of a project called dkim-milter which is
> orphaned at the moment and was developed by employees of Sendmail Inc.
> and therefore shouldn't be a license problem. Only the changes made to
> the forked project are licensed as BSD-with-advertisement.
> > If I were you, I would ask the OpenDKIM project if they would be willing
> > to drop the advertising clause.
>
> I already sent an email to the project maintainer and hope to hear from
> him soon.

After some discussion on their mailinglist they decided to drop the
4th-clause. I'm happy to see this decision and would like to thank
especially Tom since he could bring up some real good arguments against
the 4th-clause and helped out wherever he could!

Regards,
Stefan