[Fedora-legal-list] ii package license

[Tristan Santore]

On 03/02/12 12:00, 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. ii package license (Petr Šabata)
>    2. Re: ii package license (Josh Boyer)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:04:57 +0100
> From: Petr Šabata <contyk at redhat.com>
> To: legal at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] ii package license
> Message-ID: <20120203090457.GA27116 at rincewind.brq.redhat.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Dear list,
> 
> I'm packaging the ii IRC client [1] for Fedora and the
> package reviewer has expressed concerns about its license.
> This software includes, in addition to the main MIT-licensed
> code, the following script:
> 
> http://hg.suckless.org/ii/file/d163c8917af7/query.sh
> 
> I've decided to use "MIT and Public domain" as the package
> license.  Would that be correct?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Petr
> 
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784589 
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 230 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20120203/fcfe5bc4/attachment-0001.sig>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 06:57:40 -0500
> From: Josh Boyer <jwboyer at gmail.com>
> To: legal at lists.fedoraproject.org, volker27 at gmx.at
> Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] ii package license
> Message-ID:
> 	<CA+5PVA5+hcDZmOZ5DvL3wkNzs+9pj_hpPYU9jwoJjP2aDoXh3w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Petr Šabata <contyk at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Dear list,
>>
>> I'm packaging the ii IRC client [1] for Fedora and the
>> package reviewer has expressed concerns about its license.
>> This software includes, in addition to the main MIT-licensed
>> code, the following script:
>>
>> http://hg.suckless.org/ii/file/d163c8917af7/query.sh
>>
>> I've decided to use "MIT and Public domain" as the package
>> license.  Would that be correct?
> 
> I don't think Public Domain is correct.  That normally needs to be
> expressly specified and the author clearly isn't doing that.
> 
> It's similar to WTFPL, but not enough to be called that.  Spot is
> at FOSDEM, so this will probably need to wait until he looks it
> over.  If it were me, I'd ask upstream to relicense it to something
> a bit more standard in any case.
> 
> josh
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> legal mailing list
> legal at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
> 
> End of legal Digest, Vol 56, Issue 3
> ************************************
Petr and Josh,

Spot made the following change in the guidelines.

*****

Works which are clearly marked as being in the Public Domain, and for
which no evidence is known to contradict this statement, are treated in
Fedora as being in the Public Domain, on the grounds that the intentions
of the original creator are reflected by such a use, even if due to
regional issues, it may not have been possible for the original creator
to fully abandon all of their their copyrights on the work and place it
fully into the Public Domain. If you believe that a work in Fedora which
is marked as being in the Public Domain is actually available under a
copyright license, please inform us of this fact with details, and we
will immediately investigate the claim.

*****

#!/bin/sh

     2 # ----------------------------------------------------

     3 # Nico Golde <nico at ngolde.de>

     4 # License: do whatever you want with this code

     5 # Purpose: locate new queries for the ii irc client

     6 # ----------------------------------------------------

I interpret the above statement just as such. Technically, I assume you
could even re-license it on the original copyright holders behalf, as
the copyright holder invites you to do with it as you please.

Of course, Spot is the one who strangles the legal folks in his spare
time. So, he should be able to choke out a more elaborate answer, as
there is probably some US legal sillyness, which prevents people from
using common sense.

I should add further, the above mentioned changes in the guidelines were
made with the approval of the board and the legal geniuses.

Regards,

Tristan

-- 
Tristan Santore BSc MBCS
TS4523-RIPE
Network and Infrastructure Operations
InterNexusConnect
Mobile +44-78-55069812
Tristan.Santore at internexusconnect.net

Former Thawte Notary
(Please note: Thawte has closed its WoT programme down,
and I am therefore no longer able to accredit trust)

For Fedora related issues, please email me at:
TSantore at fedoraproject.org