Documentation and header files seemingly without a license

[Ville-Pekka Vainio]

Hi,

I'm reviewing erlang-bitcask for Fedora:
<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652623>;. A good way of
browsing through upstream source is here:
<https://bitbucket.org/basho/bitcask/src>;.

Upstream doesn't have a LICENSE file or similar and the license is not
mentioned in the README file either. I have two licensing related
questions:

1. All other relevant source files have a license header except
include/bitcask.hrl and c_src/erl_nif_compat.h. I'm not sure if they
constitute a "work" in terms of copyright and should have licenses. What
do you think?

2. This is, to me, the more important question. There is a .pdf file and
some .png files in the doc directory. To me these seem like works which
are under copyright, but I can't find a license for them anywhere in the
source tree. Does this make them non-free and non-redistributable?

-- 
Ville-Pekka Vainio

[Tom Callaway]

On 01/13/2011 04:17 PM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
>  1. All other relevant source files have a license header except
>  include/bitcask.hrl and c_src/erl_nif_compat.h. I'm not sure if they
>  constitute a "work" in terms of copyright and should have licenses. What
>  do you think? 
I think those files should have license headers. At a minimum, we should
confirm the licensing with upstream.

>  2. This is, to me, the more important question. There is a .pdf file
> and
>  some .png files in the doc directory. To me these seem like works which
>  are under copyright, but I can't find a license for them anywhere in the
>  source tree. Does this make them non-free and non-redistributable? 
If we don't know the license, we have to assume we have no license.
However, we should make every effort to ask upstream about the license
terms of those files.

In cases where a general license statement is given somewhere, like in
README, we can assume it applies to these sorts of files as well, but in
this case where there is no license attribution, we either need to get
it from upstream (aka the copyright holder) or assume we have no license.

~tom

==
Fedora Project

[Lakshmi Narasimhan T V]

Hello Peter,
I am reviewing erlang-skerl<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652648>and
the issue I am facing is similar to what Ville-Pekka reports. In this
case, some of the c source/header files and erlang source files are without
license headers.

Could you ask upstream to include license headers in the source code files
of both packages / or confirm the licensing of those files?

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Tom Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  On 01/13/2011 04:17 PM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
>  > 1. All other relevant source files have a license header except
>  > include/bitcask.hrl and c_src/erl_nif_compat.h. I'm not sure if they
>  > constitute a "work" in terms of copyright and should have licenses. What
>  > do you think?
>
>  I think those files should have license headers. At a minimum, we should
>  confirm the licensing with upstream.
>
>  > 2. This is, to me, the more important question. There is a .pdf file and
>  > some .png files in the doc directory. To me these seem like works which
>  > are under copyright, but I can't find a license for them anywhere in the
>  > source tree. Does this make them non-free and non-redistributable?
>
>  If we don't know the license, we have to assume we have no license.
>  However, we should make every effort to ask upstream about the license
>  terms of those files.
>
>  In cases where a general license statement is given somewhere, like in
>  README, we can assume it applies to these sorts of files as well, but in
>  this case where there is no license attribution, we either need to get
>  it from upstream (aka the copyright holder) or assume we have no license.
>
>  ~tom
>
>  ==
>  Fedora Project
>  _______________________________________________
>  legal mailing list
>  legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
>  


-- 
Regards
Lakshmi Narasimhan T V

[Peter Lemenkov]

Hello All!

2011/1/15 lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com&gt;:
>  Hello Peter,
>  I am reviewing erlang-skerl and the issue I am facing is similar to what
>  Ville-Pekka reports. In this case, some of the c source/header files and
>  erlang source files are without license headers.
>  Could you ask upstream to include license headers in the source code files
>  of both packages / or confirm the licensing of those files? 
I already contacted Justin Sheeny, one of the upstream developers,
regarding legal status of the erlang-bitcask. He replied that these
files are indeed SSL 2.0 licensed, and the necessary headers will be
added to these files very soon (only in SCM - no tarballs with already
released versions will be recreated and re-released). Also he kindly
granted us permission to redistribute doc-file freely w/o
modifications. I hope that it's ok for content.

Regarding the rest of the files in question (in erlang-skerl and
possibly in some other Riak-related packages) - I'll try to figure out
which source-files still don't have a necessary legal info and I'll
notify upstream in a couple of days (or, at least, next week). Right
now I think I should add FE-LEGAL blocker to all the reviews in
question (to erlang-skerl and possibly to some others) , and will
unblock them as soon as I will get confirmation from upstream. I will
not add FE-LEGAL to erlang-bitcask since the issue was already
resolved.

-- 
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.

[Ville-Pekka Vainio]

su, 2011-01-16 kello 13:22 +0300, Peter Lemenkov kirjoitti:
>  I already contacted Justin Sheeny, one of the upstream developers,
>  regarding legal status of the erlang-bitcask. He replied that these
>  files are indeed SSL 2.0 licensed, and the necessary headers will be
>  added to these files very soon (only in SCM - no tarballs with already
>  released versions will be recreated and re-released).  
Thanks, that's good to hear.

>  Also he kindly
>  granted us permission to redistribute doc-file freely w/o
>  modifications. I hope that it's ok for content. 
I would like to get a confirmation from someone that this is OK in
Fedora before accepting the package.

-- 
Ville-Pekka Vainio

[Tom Callaway]

On 01/16/2011 06:10 AM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
> > Also he kindly
> > > granted us permission to redistribute doc-file freely w/o
> > > modifications. I hope that it's ok for content.
>  I would like to get a confirmation from someone that this is OK in
>  Fedora before accepting the package. 
Documentation is considered "content" in Fedora, see:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Code_Vs_Content

That particular section is overdue for rewording, but all content must
meet the minimum requirement of being freely redistributable without
restrictions (upon distribution).

So, while I would strongly encourage upstreams to consider Free
Documentation licenses, it is not a requirement for documentation
inclusion in Fedora.

~tom

==
Fedora Project

[Ville-Pekka Vainio]

ma, 2011-01-17 kello 12:11 -0500, Tom Callaway kirjoitti:
>  So, while I would strongly encourage upstreams to consider Free
>  Documentation licenses, it is not a requirement for documentation
>  inclusion in Fedora. 
Thanks for your answers, Tom. When we get a license for the two header
files committed to the upstream repository, I can continue the review.

-- 
Ville-Pekka Vainio