[Fedora-legal-list] Proper description of mysql's documentation license?

[Paul W. Frields]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 08:56:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> >> Bug #560181 correctly points out that although mysql's code is
> >> distributed under GPL, the associated documentation is not.
> >> The reporter proposes classifying it as "Redistributable, no
> >> modification permitted", but I thought I'd ask this list about
> >> opinions on the best license tag for it.  The doc license looks
> >> like this:
> >>
> >> Copyright 1997-2008 MySQL AB, 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> >>
> >> This documentation is NOT distributed under a GPL license. Use of this
> >> documentation is subject to the following terms: You may create a
> >> printed copy of this documentation solely for your own personal use.
> >> Conversion to other formats is allowed as long as the actual content is
> >> not altered or edited in any way. You shall not publish or distribute
> >> this documentation in any form or on any media, except if you
> >> distribute the documentation in a manner similar to how Sun
> >> disseminates it (that is, electronically for download on a Web site
> >> with the software) or on a CD-ROM or similar medium, provided however
> >> that the documentation is disseminated together with the software on
> >> the same medium. Any other use, such as any dissemination of printed
> >> copies or use of this documentation, in whole or in part, in another
> >> publication, requires the prior written consent from an authorized
> >> representative of Sun Microsystems, Inc.  Sun Microsystems, Inc. and
> >> MySQL AB reserve any and all rights to this documentation not expressly
> >> granted above.
> 
> to which Richard Fontana replied:
> > These terms seem not to satisfy current Fedora licensing guidelines,
> > if I'm not mistaken. Spot?
> 
> Ping?  I'm not sure if the above constitutes a final decision or not.
> If it does, must I edit the tarball to remove the offending file, or is
> it sufficient to not install it?

I know Spot has a number of IRL pressures going on, so let me see if I
can help.  Documentation source of this kind that is nonmodifiable
does not meet Fedora licensing guidelines, and cannot be included in
the distribution.

There might be a (somewhat ugly and unproductive) argument to be made
that we don't technically need to strip out the docs source itself
because the distribution in the SRPM only is unmodified and in an
electronic form similar to that used by Sun.  But that would dodge the
fact that just making those docs available in the SRPM, even unbuilt
in the binary RPM, gives them a false appearance of acceptability when
they are in fact non-free.

I'd recommend stripping them out of the tarball using the methods
shown in the packaging guidelines, and then including your own
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README-docs.Fedora indicating the
licensing of the docs is nonfree, and including a web address for the
official docs.

Couldn't Sun just as well protect the sanctity of their official
documentation by tying their requirements to the use of the MySQL
trademarks, so that if someone wanted/needed to alter the docs for
some reason, they were required to relinquish use of those trademarks?
I think that would allow them to be more fully freed and then we could
include them in the Fedora repository.

Spot, Richard, if you see any place above where I'm offbase, please
jump in.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
          Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com