[Fedora-legal-list] Frontier Artistic License

Thu Feb 4 17:26:25 UTC 2010

On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 12:00 +0000, legal-request at lists.fedoraproject.org
wrote:
> Send legal mailing list submissions to
> 	legal at lists.fedoraproject.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	legal-request at lists.fedoraproject.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	legal-owner at lists.fedoraproject.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of legal digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Frontier Artistic License (Steve Grubb)
>    2. Re: Frontier Artistic License (Richard Fontana)
>    3. Re: Frontier Artistic License (Steve Grubb)
>    4. Re: Frontier Artistic License (Richard Fontana)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:28:39 -0500
> From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb at redhat.com>
> Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Frontier Artistic License
> To: legal at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Message-ID: <201002031128.39713.sgrubb at redhat.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Hello,
> 
> We were doing a license review of the aide package and found that its shipping 
> a file that is released under the Frontier Artistic License:
> 
> http://www.spinwardstars.com/frontier/fal.html
> 
> Is this license acceptable to Fedora? (I couldn't find mention of it on the 
> Licensing wiki page.) Aide is a GPLv2+ application in case you need to know 
> that as well.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Steve
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:44:51 -0500
> From: Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Frontier Artistic License
> To: Steve Grubb <sgrubb at redhat.com>
> Cc: legal at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Message-ID: <20100203164451.GA9107 at redhat.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 11:28:39AM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > We were doing a license review of the aide package and found that its shipping 
> > a file that is released under the Frontier Artistic License:
> > 
> > http://www.spinwardstars.com/frontier/fal.html
> > 
> > Is this license acceptable to Fedora? (I couldn't find mention of it on the 
> > Licensing wiki page.) 
> 
> No, I discussed this with Spot in a different context a year ago, and
> the conclusion was that the Frontier Artistic License was not
> acceptable for Fedora, given the non-acceptability of the Artistic
> License 1.0.
> 
> - RF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:53:44 -0500
> From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Frontier Artistic License
> To: Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com>
> Cc: legal at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Message-ID: <201002031353.44953.sgrubb at redhat.com>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> On Wednesday 03 February 2010 11:44:51 am Richard Fontana wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 11:28:39AM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > We were doing a license review of the aide package and found that its
> > > shipping a file that is released under the Frontier Artistic License:
> > >
> > > http://www.spinwardstars.com/frontier/fal.html
> > >
> > > Is this license acceptable to Fedora? (I couldn't find mention of it on
> > > the Licensing wiki page.)
> > 
> > No, I discussed this with Spot in a different context a year ago, and
> > the conclusion was that the Frontier Artistic License was not
> > acceptable for Fedora, given the non-acceptability of the Artistic
> > License 1.0.
> 
> OK, all linux distributions are shipping this package. I found that Debian had 
> discussed this too and they accepted it. So, if we object to it, then I need 
> to do some work upstream to fix this. What should I tell them is the basis for 
> us not allowing it when other accept it? I'm not opposed to your 
> recommendation, I just want to be able to state out position, that's all.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Steve
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:31:32 -0500
> From: Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Frontier Artistic License
> To: Steve Grubb <sgrubb at redhat.com>
> Cc: legal at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Message-ID: <20100203223132.GB9973 at redhat.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 01:53:44PM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Wednesday 03 February 2010 11:44:51 am Richard Fontana wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 11:28:39AM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > We were doing a license review of the aide package and found that its
> > > > shipping a file that is released under the Frontier Artistic License:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.spinwardstars.com/frontier/fal.html
> > > >
> > > > Is this license acceptable to Fedora? (I couldn't find mention of it on
> > > > the Licensing wiki page.)
> > > 
> > > No, I discussed this with Spot in a different context a year ago, and
> > > the conclusion was that the Frontier Artistic License was not
> > > acceptable for Fedora, given the non-acceptability of the Artistic
> > > License 1.0.
> > 
> > OK, all linux distributions are shipping this package. I found that Debian had 
> > discussed this too and they accepted it. So, if we object to it, then I need 
> > to do some work upstream to fix this. What should I tell them is the basis for 
> > us not allowing it when other accept it? I'm not opposed to your 
> > recommendation, I just want to be able to state out position, that's all.
> 
> Sure, in Spot's temporary absence I will give it a try. 
> 
> Fedora's general policy, ignoring certain special cases, is to
> distribute software only under free software licenses. In determining
> what is "free", Fedora seeks to apply the FSF's Free Software
> Definition and looks to documented FSF policy (where it exists) as the
> main source of persuasive external authority.  Decisions by other
> distros that rigorously adopt a similar policy (particularly Debian),
> as well as license approvals/disapprovals by the OSI, are viewed with
> respect and may be helpful, but are not treated as similarly
> authoritative.[1] Fedora is especially reluctant to adopt a specific
> position on a license's freeness/non-freeness that differs from that
> of the FSF.[2]
> 
> The Free Software Foundation has, for well over ten years I believe,
> publicly classified the Artistic License 1.0 as non-free.[3] We
> believe that there is a sound basis for the FSF's opinion; among other
> things it stands for the important general principle that, at some
> point, licenses may be too vague or confusing to be considered free, a
> principle we have applied in reviewing other licenses.  This view
> applies equally to the Frontier Artistic License, which is based
> closely on the Artistic License 1.0 and contains most if not all of
> the features that originally troubled the FSF. Fedora has, as I
> understand it, acted on this policy by pulling Artistic 1.0-licensed
> Perl packages not dual-licensed under the GPL or available under
> Artistic 2.0.
> 
> [1] Indeed, several OSI-approved licenses are on the Fedora "bad
> license" list, while at least one OSI-disapproved license has been
> approved for Fedora. 
> 
> [2] I am aware of one case where the FSF judged a license to be free
> after (in the absence of guidance from the FSF) we decided it was
> nonfree; we have not altered our decision, but the issue is moot
> because the licensor revised the license to cure the deficiency.
> 
> [3] If my understanding of the history is correct, the acceptability
> of the Artistic License 1.0 was grandfathered into the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines and implicitly into the Open Source Definition,
> despite known concerns about the license.
> 
> - Richard
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> legal mailing list
> legal at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
> 
> End of legal Digest, Vol 32, Issue 1
> ************************************
> 
sounds like what spot would have said to me.