Looking at fluxbox I noticed that almost all of it's theme.cfg files are licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA according to the headers:
############################################################ # This work is licensed under the Creative Commons # # Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License. # # To view a copy of this license, visit # # http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ # # or send a letter to Creative Commons, # # 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA. # ############################################################
Interestingly enough they point to the URL for the CC license that doesn't have the Non-Commercial clause.
You can find these files under usr/share/fluxbox/styles/{arch,bloe,bora_black,bora_blue,bora_green,carp,green_tea,ostrich,zimek_*}/theme.cfg As and example, you can find them in this build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=209141
I thought I would raise the issue here and see whether those files need to be removed from the Fedora package or not. The Non Commercial clause seems to make them non-free according to the Fedora guidelines.
josh
Josh Boyer wrote, at 02/26/2011 05:14 AM +9:00:
Looking at fluxbox I noticed that almost all of it's theme.cfg files are licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA according to the headers:
CC-BY-NC-SA is already listed explicitly as "not okay for Fedora" license: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Bad_Licenses_3
############################################################ # This work is licensed under the Creative Commons # # Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License. # # To view a copy of this license, visit # # http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ # # or send a letter to Creative Commons, # # 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA. # ############################################################
Interestingly enough they point to the URL for the CC license that doesn't have the Non-Commercial clause.
Anyway this header is confusing so the maintainer would have to contact fluxbox upstream about this.
Regards, Mamoru
(Sorry to Josh that I mail to you directly.. Resending to legal list)
Josh Boyer wrote, at 02/26/2011 05:14 AM +9:00:
Looking at fluxbox I noticed that almost all of it's theme.cfg files are licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA according to the headers:
############################################################ # This work is licensed under the Creative Commons # # Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License. # # To view a copy of this license, visit # # http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ # # or send a letter to Creative Commons, # # 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA. # ############################################################
Interestingly enough they point to the URL for the CC license that doesn't have the Non-Commercial clause.
You can find these files under usr/share/fluxbox/styles/{arch,bloe,bora_black,bora_blue,bora_green,carp,green_tea,ostrich,zimek_*}/theme.cfg As and example, you can find them in this build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=209141
I thought I would raise the issue here and see whether those files need to be removed from the Fedora package or not. The Non Commercial clause seems to make them non-free according to the Fedora guidelines.
josh
Well, it seems that with fluxbox 1.3.0 the headers of these files (except for ostrich) are modified (to show that they are under CC-BY-SA) or the files are removed.
Regards, Mamoru
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp wrote:
(Sorry to Josh that I mail to you directly.. Resending to legal list)
Josh Boyer wrote, at 02/26/2011 05:14 AM +9:00:
Looking at fluxbox I noticed that almost all of it's theme.cfg files are licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA according to the headers:
Interestingly enough they point to the URL for the CC license that doesn't have the Non-Commercial clause.
Well, it seems that with fluxbox 1.3.0 the headers of these files (except for ostrich) are modified (to show that they are under CC-BY-SA) or the files are removed.
That is good to hear, but it doesn't solve the issue for F13, F14, F15, and EPEL, which are all still using 1.1.
I wonder what the solution for existing branches is given that upgrading to 1.3.0 might not be feasible for all of them, particularly EPEL.
josh
-
Josh Boyer -
Mamoru Tasaka