Re: [Fedora-olpc-list] introduction and a question

[Walter Bender]

> There was questions raised on licensing at
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList#OLPC_Wishlist
>
> Perhaps you can talk to Spot (cc'ed) and get it clarified?
>
> Rahul

I've included below the correspondence between VPRI and Debian in
regard the license question.

regards.

-walter

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kim Rose 
Date: Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:26 AM
Subject: Fwd: Squeak images/relicensing
To: Walter Bender 
Cc: Bert Freudenberg

Hi, Walter -

Here is a copy of my message to Jose.

-- Kim

Begin forwarded message:
> From: Kim Rose 
> Date: April 4, 2008 9:18:11 AM PDT
> To: José L. Redrejo Rodríguez 
> Cc: Bert Freudenberg , Yoshiki Ohshima , Craig Latta , Kim Rose 
> Subject: Squeak images/relicensing
>
> Hi, Jose -
>
> I hope you and your family are all doing well.
>
> I have seen the recent exchange of email between you and others regarding the relicensing effort of Squeak to the MIT License. I can see you are mostly up to date with what is going on. However, as Bert has requested I wanted to write to you directly and confirm Bert's most recent responses.
>
> Jose:
> > Can you confirm me that the code that has not been relicensed has been
> > removed from the olpc image?
>
> Bert:
>
> No. But VPRI as the original authors take responsibility for the earlier contributions made under the Squeak License. VPRI made every justifiable effort to contact the contributors. Not a single contributor was against relicensing, so it is safe to assume that even those that could not be reached would be happy to see their code continue to be used. They submitted it for official inclusion in Squeak, after all. So who would argue that, if not the contributors themselves?
>
> As Bert says VPRI spearheaded an effort to contact *every* contributor to the Squeak code base.  We did not receive a single negative response and have a notebook with 100s of signed re-licensing agreements.  We also put out several "speak now or forever hold your peace" group emails indicating the relicensing was taking effect and should anyone object to relicensing their code to let us know.
>
> Our attitude is the code IS now relicensed under the MIT license.  Should, a contributor, at any time, write to VPRI and request their code be taken out of the code base, we would comply.
>
> Please do not let this interfere with or hold up your efforts.
>
> Thanks again and best regards,
> Kim

[Fedora-olpc-list] introduction and a question

[Tom Callaway]

On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 08:49 -0400, Walter Bender wrote:
> I've included below the correspondence between VPRI and Debian in
> regard the license question.

I'm not sure it is safe to assume that because a contributor was not
reached, they are therefore okay with permitting a second party to
relicense their copyrighted work.

~spot

[Fedora-olpc-list] introduction and a question

[Walter Bender]

Any suggestions as to how to proceed then? The VPRI team has agreed to
remove/rewrite any contributions that people don't want relicensed.

-walter

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Tom spot Callaway  wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 08:49 -0400, Walter Bender wrote:
> > I've included below the correspondence between VPRI and Debian in
> > regard the license question.
>
> I'm not sure it is safe to assume that because a contributor was not
> reached, they are therefore okay with permitting a second party to
> relicense their copyrighted work.
>
> ~spot

[Fedora-olpc-list] introduction and a question

[Tom Callaway]

On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 10:28 -0400, Walter Bender wrote:
> Any suggestions as to how to proceed then? The VPRI team has agreed to
> remove/rewrite any contributions that people don't want relicensed.

Either of those options would be the logical next step (you have to
assume that non-responsive contributors do not agree to a relicensing,
unless there is some sort of contributor agreement in place which
stipulates otherwise). When the source tree is 100% MIT (or some other
equally free license), then we should have no problem including it in
Fedora.

~spot

[Fedora-olpc-list] introduction and a question

[Rahul Sundaram]

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 10:28 -0400, Walter Bender wrote:
> > Any suggestions as to how to proceed then? The VPRI team has agreed to
> > remove/rewrite any contributions that people don't want relicensed.
>
> Either of those options would be the logical next step (you have to
> assume that non-responsive contributors do not agree to a relicensing,
> unless there is some sort of contributor agreement in place which
> stipulates otherwise). When the source tree is 100% MIT (or some other
> equally free license), then we should have no problem including it in
> Fedora.

When there was a discussion about the possibility of relicensing the 
Linux kernel to GPLv3, there was a proposal that involved the legality 
of unilateral declaration followed by a time gap for opposition instead 
of getting explicit written agreement from all the contributors. You 
might want to talk to Red Hat Legal to check whether this is a 
possibility. It sounded more like a leap of faith than law but one can 
never assume laws to be logical.

Rahul