Regarding ghc-failure

[Lakshmi Narasimhan T V]

Hello,
I am reviewing package request ghc-failure (
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630223 ). This is a haskell
package. Each haskell package has a cabal file (similar to a Makefile say)
that lists, among other things, the license of the sources.

In case of ghc-failure, the license is PublicDomain (as mentioned in the
cabal file). I looked at this page
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses and found Public
Domain to be a *good* license.  There reason for not having the space in the
word PublicDomain (based on my assessment) is that the cabal program will
not accept a license value with spaces.

Given that the license field in the cabal file is not textually matching the
license name that is listed in the webpage, is it ok to go ahead and use
"Public Domain" in the spec file? Is it required that the author of the
package be contacted to obtain a confirmation on PublicDomain

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> > > > > "lc" == lakshminaras2002@gmail com  writes:

lc> Given that the license field in the cabal file is not textually
lc> matching the license name that is listed in the webpage, is it ok to
lc> go ahead and use "Public Domain" in the spec file?

That's taking things a bit literally, isn't it?  I'd be more concerned
about the other issues surrounding public domain works:

Is the author in a jurisdiction where they are permitted to place works
in the public domain. (For example, French citizens cannot do so.)

Is there an explicit disclaimer of copyright somewhere in the work?  I'm
not sure that simply sticking either "Public Domain" or "PublicDomain"
in a package's build infrastructure is sufficient to disclaim
copyright.

- J<

[Lakshmi Narasimhan T V]

There is no explicit disclaimer in the source package.

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > "lc" == lakshminaras2002@gmail com
>
> writes:
>
> lc> Given that the license field in the cabal file is not textually
> lc> matching the license name that is listed in the webpage, is it ok to
> lc> go ahead and use "Public Domain" in the spec file?
>
> That's taking things a bit literally, isn't it?  I'd be more concerned
> about the other issues surrounding public domain works:
>
> Is the author in a jurisdiction where they are permitted to place works
> in the public domain. (For example, French citizens cannot do so.)
>
> Is there an explicit disclaimer of copyright somewhere in the work?  I'm
> not sure that simply sticking either "Public Domain" or "PublicDomain"
> in a package's build infrastructure is sufficient to disclaim
> copyright.
> J<

[Tom Callaway]

On 11/21/2010 10:21 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> There is no explicit disclaimer in the source package.

Please send the upstream copyright holder/author this message:

---
Hi,

I am working on packaging ghc-failure for Fedora (a popular Linux
distribution), and have noticed that it is marked as being in the Public
Domain. This is a tricky legal concept in many parts of the world. In
Fedora, we try to ensure that we have legal permission to use everything
within it, and that everything is under a Free Software License.

Since the ability of a copyright holder to abandon their copyright on a
work and place it into the Public Domain is only legally possible in
certain jurisdictions, there are a few things you can do to help us
out here.

1) If you just want anyone, anywhere, to have the ability to do whatever
they would like with these software works, then please consider giving
permission for them to be used under the Creative Commons Zero license.
This license is structured to act as a practical Public Domain
declaration wherever that is permitted by law, and an extremely
permissive license everywhere else.

An overview of the CC-0 license is here:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

The actual CC-0 legal text is here:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode

If you choose to exercise this option, please reply to this email with
the following:

* A statement affirming that you are the author and copyright holder of
the aforementioned software works.
* A statement that you give permission for these works to be distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons 0 license, as described here:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

We will archive that email in the package (with your email address
obscured, if you wish).

2) If you do not wish to relicense these works under CC-0, consider
licensing them under the MIT license. This is a very permissive Free
Software license.

A copy of the MIT license can be found here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense

If you choose to exercise this option, please reply to this email with
the following:

* A statement affirming that you are the author and copyright holder of
the aforementioned software works.
* Permission to use and distribute the work under the MIT license terms

3) If neither of the two previous options is acceptable to you, and you
really just want to put the work into the Public Domain, we need you to
provide us with the following information:

* A statement affirming that you are the author and copyright holder of
the aforementioned software works.
* A statement which indicates your citizenship and geographical location
(country is sufficient) where these works were created.
* A statement declaring that you are placing these works (explicitly by
name) into the Public Domain, and are abandoning your copyright on them.

For example:

My name is John Doe, and I am the author and copyright holder of
Foo. I am a United States citizen, and this code was written in the
United States. I hereby place the Foo software into the public
domain. You are free to modify the package, distribute modified
versions, etc.

*****

Please note: Individuals in most of Europe (with the notable exception
of the UK) can almost NEVER fully abandon their copyright, thus any
public domain declarations from those individuals are invalid, and we
are left with no license on that work. This means that we will have no
permission to use, modify, or distribute it.

Specifically, this is known to be true for France, Germany, and Poland.
If you are a citizen of one of these countries (or in Europe), or were
located in one of these countries when you created this work, please
consider using one of the previously described license options.

Thanks in advance! If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

[Ville Skyttä]

On Monday 22 November 2010, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 11/21/2010 10:21 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > There is no explicit disclaimer in the source package.
>
> Please send the upstream copyright holder/author this message:

[...]

Could someone create a generic "please add copyright information to your 
distributables" message packagers could use when contacting upstreams?

See http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2010-September/001370.html

[Lakshmi Narasimhan T V]

Thanks Tom.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 11/21/2010 10:21 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > There is no explicit disclaimer in the source package.
>
> Please send the upstream copyright holder/author this message:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am working on packaging ghc-failure for Fedora (a popular Linux
> distribution), and have noticed that it is marked as being in the Public
> Domain. This is a tricky legal concept in many parts of the world. In
> Fedora, we try to ensure that we have legal permission to use everything
> within it, and that everything is under a Free Software License.
>
> Since the ability of a copyright holder to abandon their copyright on a
> work and place it into the Public Domain is only legally possible in
> certain jurisdictions, there are a few things you can do to help us
> out here.
> If you just want anyone, anywhere, to have the ability to do whatever
>
> they would like with these software works, then please consider giving
> permission for them to be used under the Creative Commons Zero license.
> This license is structured to act as a practical Public Domain
> declaration wherever that is permitted by law, and an extremely
> permissive license everywhere else.
>
> An overview of the CC-0 license is here:
> http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
>
> The actual CC-0 legal text is here:
> http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
>
> If you choose to exercise this option, please reply to this email with
> the following:
> A statement affirming that you are the author and copyright holder of
>
> the aforementioned software works.
> A statement that you give permission for these works to be distributed
>
> under the terms of the Creative Commons 0 license, as described here:
> http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
>
> We will archive that email in the package (with your email address
> obscured, if you wish).
> If you do not wish to relicense these works under CC-0, consider
>
> licensing them under the MIT license. This is a very permissive Free
> Software license.
>
> A copy of the MIT license can be found here:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense
>
> If you choose to exercise this option, please reply to this email with
> the following:
> A statement affirming that you are the author and copyright holder of
>
> the aforementioned software works.
> Permission to use and distribute the work under the MIT license terms
> If neither of the two previous options is acceptable to you, and you
>
> really just want to put the work into the Public Domain, we need you to
> provide us with the following information:
> A statement affirming that you are the author and copyright holder of
>
> the aforementioned software works.
> A statement which indicates your citizenship and geographical location
>
> (country is sufficient) where these works were created.
> A statement declaring that you are placing these works (explicitly by
>
> name) into the Public Domain, and are abandoning your copyright on them.
>
> For example:
>
> My name is John Doe, and I am the author and copyright holder of
> Foo. I am a United States citizen, and this code was written in the
> United States. I hereby place the Foo software into the public
> domain. You are free to modify the package, distribute modified
> versions, etc.
>
> Please note: Individuals in most of Europe (with the notable exception
> of the UK) can almost NEVER fully abandon their copyright, thus any
> public domain declarations from those individuals are invalid, and we
> are left with no license on that work. This means that we will have no
> permission to use, modify, or distribute it.
>
> Specifically, this is known to be true for France, Germany, and Poland.
> If you are a citizen of one of these countries (or in Europe), or were
> located in one of these countries when you created this work, please
> consider using one of the previously described license options.
>
> Thanks in advance! If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
> ask.