Le 02/02/2011 14:33, Ciaran Farrell a écrit :

Thus, if somebody wants to start such a page on the openSUSE wiki, I'd be glad to help out with it.

sure, it's a hudge work! http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Accepted_licences jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Dave Plater wrote:

...

http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Accepted_licences

jdd

That's what opensource and collaboration is all about, when it's patched don't forget to submit the patch upstream to fedora. I've found the fedora packaging site very useful.

Please think of removing the original BSD license from the list of good licenses. 1) is it as "compatible" to the GPL as the new and simplified BSD licenses are 2) but the original BSD license is not an OSS license as it contains contradicting claims that cannot be followed at the same time while the OSS definition is still valid: a) All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: ... b) Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. This means that you need to mention the original author in all advertizing material but you cannot without first asking for a permission to do so. This seems to be in conflict with section 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 of the OSS definition. Fortunately, all code originated from UCB may be relicensed under the new BSD license by permission of the Director of the Office of Technology Licensing of the University of California on July 22nd, 1999. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On 02/02/2011 03:33 PM, Ciaran Farrell wrote:

On Wednesday 02 Feb 2011 13:32:46 jdd wrote:

...

Hello,

I always try to make things better. This other thread I don't want to quote makes me ask if there is somewhere

* a list of the licences openSUSE accepts for free (OSS) repository * a list of the licences accepted for the non free repository (non-OSS) * a list of the licence openSUSE refuses at all

preferably motivated

we, at the LDP, did something similar with the result here (http://wiki.tldp.org/LdpWikiDefaultLicence) - it's just an example, as openSUSE have to cope non only with texts but also with programms.

We shouldn't have to refere to any non-openSUSE page for that matter. Of course if this don't yet exists, it should be created with the backup of Novell lawyers if possible

jdd

There is currently no official list. We had some discussions about creating one. In doing so, we found ourselves to be leaning close to what Fedora has already put together, both from the licenses that they have, how they classify them, why they classify them as well as the RPM license tags that they use.

The openSUSE project currently accepts licenses conforming to the OSI definition (individual licenses, I mean - I'm not addressing combinations/derivations/collections). There are exceptions where the package in question contains freely redistributable firmware that is unmodifiable (mostly wireless firmware) or data/content only.

Thus, if somebody wants to start such a page on the openSUSE wiki, I'd be glad to help out with it.

Ciaran

One of the new two new packages I've submitted to factory bears the text in the copying file : The LV2 header lv2.h is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 or later. See the included file COPYING.LGPL for details. The LV2 data file lv2.ttl is licensed under a BSD-style license, see the header at the top of lv2.ttl for details. What should I put in the License: field? Thanks Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On 02/03/2011 01:49 AM, Juergen Weigert wrote:

On Feb 03, 11 00:53:39 +0200, Dave Plater wrote:

...

One of the new two new packages I've submitted to factory bears the text in the copying file : The LV2 header lv2.h is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License, The LV2 data file lv2.ttl is licensed under a BSD-style license,

lv2.ttl? Ah, we are talking about multimedia:libs lv2core

...

What should I put in the License: field?

To be exact, I'd sugest License: LGPLv2.1+ ; X11 MIT ; GPLv2+ ; BSD3c

The header of lv2.ttl comes very close to the archetypical MIT license. See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

The 3-Clause BSD license is found in the script wav. The GPL license is found in the script autowaf.py.

As far as I can make out, the licensing of the build system components aren't a problem it's just the components of the final built package and what they link to, which is a pure devel package, that count. The package description, which I copy pasted from the upstream website states that lv2.h is the only file needed for linking purposes and lv2.ttl is a manifest providing information for the actual plugins. I never realised the extent of the knowledge needed for packaging before.

'BSD' in the general sense could qualify as 'close enough', but it is unspecific.

Although the GPL is the 'strongest' license, I'd still put LGPL first in the list, as this is the main License according to upstream.

cheers, JW-

I'm going to find out soon, slv2 (also multimedia:libs) is already under legal review and it contains "hosts/jack_compat.h" with a header that doesn't specify GPLv2 or later only GPLv2, jack is LGPLv2.1 I;ve filed a bug at slv2 and am waiting to see if I have to disable jack support for now. lv2core and slv2 are joined at the hip and you can have just lv2core-devel to build in LV2 plugin support but every package that can have LV2 uses slv2 as well, so far. Regards Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Feb 02, 11 15:51:26 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:

...

quote makes me ask if there is somewhere

* a list of the licences openSUSE accepts for free (OSS) repository * a list of the licences accepted for the non free repository (non-OSS) * a list of the licence openSUSE refuses at all

Not really. I am probably guilty of not compiling and maintaining such lists. (See perhaps http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Build_Service_application_blacklist) The idea was to decide case by case and only afterwards study if any useful patterns evolve. We never saw a need for 100% strict a-priori-rules.

A small hint: the GNU "free" documentation license is a non-free license and therfore not accepted by the OSI.

GFDL is acceptable for SUSE, at least when used as intended - for Documentation. C-Source under GFDL would be a different matter, probably. cheers, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) SuSE. Supporting Linux since 1992. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Le 02/02/2011 15:51, Joerg Schilling a écrit :

A small hint: the GNU "free" documentation license is a non-free license and therfore not accepted by the OSI.

I dont see either the "Creative Common" licences (no of them) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Le 02/02/2011 16:38, Martin Schlander a écrit :

Don't forget that not only licences need to be considered. Other ("legal") issues can block packages too (e.g. patents and other weirdness).

yes, but this is not something we can do much about :-( the page http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Build_Service_application_blacklist quoted by juergen is nearly perfect, I work on a new page here: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Accepted_licences if somebody could add the flag "work" in progress, I don't know hpwto do :-( jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

I take this opportunity to make a small question regarding BY-NC-ND. I've runned a couple of times against licences with 'NC', in most cases the authors were kind enough to remove the NC. NC might become a problem to SLES/SLED, and in a way to openSUSE as we have boxed packages anyway. What is the status on this CC's with NC ? NM On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Juergen Weigert wrote:

On Feb 02, 11 18:40:12 +0100, jdd wrote:

...

Le 02/02/2011 16:38, Martin Schlander a écrit :

the page http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Build_Service_application_blacklist quoted by juergen is nearly perfect,

I beg to disagree :-)

...

I work on a new page here: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Accepted_licences

Thank you!

...

if somebody could add the flag "work" in progress, I don't know hpwto do :-(

Our wiki does not support the {{underconstruction}} template. All the work in progress articles say so literally. I've added the {{Expand}} template instead, which comes close.

       cheers,                JW-

--  o \  Juergen Weigert  paint it green!    __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de       back to ascii!  __/        _---|____________\/  \  | 0911 74053-508                __/          (____/            /\ (/) | _____________________________/              _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg)

SuSE. Supporting Linux since 1992. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

-- nelson marques nmo.marques@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Feb 02, 11 19:31:22 +0100, jdd wrote:

NC is Stallman incompatible :-)). What I usually say is "how much money do you plan to get from this work?" Most of the time, answer is "none". So why prohibit Commercial use?

"Others get rich through my work, while I remain poor." If that appears unfair to you, you could go down that path ... (I would not, though) cheers, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) SuSE. Supporting Linux since 1992. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On 02/03/2011 03:03 AM, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:

Hi,

On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Juergen Weigert wrote:

...

On Feb 02, 11 19:31:22 +0100, jdd wrote:

...

...

NC is Stallman incompatible :-)). What I usually say is "how much money do you plan to get from this work?" Most of the time, answer is "none". So why prohibit Commercial use?

"Others get rich through my work, while I remain poor." If that appears unfair to you, you could go down that path ... (I would not, though)

Please don't break it down to "money only".

Bert Brecht once has poeted (and "Kommissar Ehrlicher" from Tatort has cited it in a german sunday evening talkshow):

Armer Mann trifft reichen Mann und beide sehn sich an. Da sprach der Arme zum Reichen: "Wär ich nicht arm, wärst Du nicht reich!

Poor man meets rich man Both are facing another Says the poor to the rich: If I were not poor, you were not rich"

But the poem needs the greater conciousness of "the poor" to understand it right, I guess.

Viele Gruesse Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)

I'm not poor, with one statement there are no longer any rich. I enjoyed that. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Juergen Weigert wrote:

But it does not draw an exact borderline.

This results in-dubio in a no-go.

But if a helpful copyright owner can be contacted, I suggest to ask him a simple question:

Do you consider our activites as commercial use with regard to your license?

You would need to ask any of the copyright owner that have code under such a license. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Juergen Weigert wrote:

Given the fact that Novell/SUSE needs to make money in order to pay my salary, we obviously seek commercial advantage. openSUSE boxes can be bought in stores, SLE customers pay for support and so on.

Just to be clear and avoid any rumors: Novell has not been doing openSUSE boxes for a while (and does not get any revenue from those that others do). Gerald -- Dr. Gerald Pfeifer Director Product Management, SUSE Linux Enterprise, openSUSE, Appliances -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 12:27:10 pm jdd wrote:

the licence problem is an open source nightmare :-(

Once upon a time, small number of licenses was competitive advantage of open source. Maybe it is still better. It depends what number is growing faster, one per vendor, product and version, or all combinations of few basic licenses in all software packages. -- Regards, Rajko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Le 03/02/2011 03:03, Eberhard Moenkeberg a écrit :

"Few basic licenses" has to be the goal, everything else will "feed the enemy" in one way or the other. Yes, will, not would.

That's why in the LDP we listed a small number of accepted licences, with defaulkt being GFDL http://wiki.tldp.org/LdpWikiDefaultLicence but it's far more difficult for a distribution, seing the package number. still we could ask new developpers to use some defined licence. OSI are already too much. jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Le 03/02/2011 08:08, Ciaran Farrell a écrit : (b) a variation on an 'accepted' license

For what it's worth, I think the work that Fedora has done on classification is quite good: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

yes, that's what we need jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Le 03/02/2011 10:47, Ciaran Farrell a écrit :

Then I suggest we just import them.

I'm doing that. notice fedora have a closed list to discuss licences and other legal problems, we should also have one, do we? jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Thursday 03 Feb 2011 11:05:50 Ralf Lang wrote:

Am Donnerstag 03 Februar 2011, 11:01:11 schrieb jdd:

...

Le 03/02/2011 10:47, Ciaran Farrell a écrit :

...

Then I suggest we just import them.

I'm doing that.

notice fedora have a closed list to discuss licences and other legal problems, we should also have one, do we?

Why should we? I'm not a lawyer, but the reasons why or why not a license should work for us are no secrets, are they?

I think he meant that you have to be subscribed to the list in order to post. The Fedora legal mailing list discussions are publicly visible and anyone can join the mailing list. Ciaran -- Ciaran Farrell __o cfarrell@suse.de _`\<,_ Phone: +49 (0)911 74053 262 (_)/ (_) SUSE Linux Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409, Nuremberg, Germany /ˈkiː.ræn/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On 02/03/2011 12:21 PM, jdd wrote:

Le 03/02/2011 11:05, Ralf Lang a écrit :

...

Am Donnerstag 03 Februar 2011, 11:01:11 schrieb jdd:

...

Le 03/02/2011 10:47, Ciaran Farrell a écrit :

...

Then I suggest we just import them.

I'm doing that.

notice fedora have a closed list to discuss licences and other legal problems, we should also have one, do we?

Why should we? I'm not a lawyer, but the reasons why or why not a license should work for us are no secrets, are they?

highly controversial subject have to be moderated in some sort, not to fall in trolls. Of course the list have to be readable by every one.

the wiki page also (specially) have also to be closed as soon as the content is approved. legal position can't be the wiki spirit :-)

notice that in the present content (feb 3, 11.30 french time), many links are to fedora wiki and something have to be done to link to some openSUSE part.

I can't do this, I have neither the talent, the time nor the autority to do so :-(

jdd

Maybe only open to registered users or Novell registered or openSUSE members? Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On 02/04/2011 06:25 PM, jdd wrote:

Le 04/02/2011 16:16, Dave Plater a écrit :

...

Maybe only open to registered users or Novell registered or openSUSE members?

no, simpply like the main page, open to wiki admin. Or once verified, open only to legal owner (like the copyright notice)

jdd

The page definitely needs to be locked against unqualified or for that matter malicious alteration. The least harm that disinformation on that page is delay the acceptance of a new package by a packager who tries to get a package in factory. To legal action resulting from an unsuspecting person doing something that they thought was legal after reading the wiki. I could think of many ways for an inclined person (a nutter) to create chaos by disinformation on the page. Me, although I'm not a practising Buddhist I follow the philosophy and believe that the easier things are for your neighbour the easier they'll be for you. Got to make sure the neighbour doesn't take advantage of your good nature though. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On 02/05/2011 04:18 AM, Rajko M. wrote:

On Friday, February 04, 2011 12:00:04 pm Dave Plater wrote:

...

The page definitely needs to be locked against unqualified or for that matter malicious alteration.

That is why we have FlaggedRevs, MediaWiki extension. Visitors can see either never evaluated version, or only approved. Wiki users can see approved and draft. Users that belong to Editor or Reviewer groups can approve new version of document.

Although openSUSE: namespace is not covered by that extension, so Main or SDB should be used to make sure that no one can without approval change text.

Another solution is to include openSUSE in the extension, but then grant reviewer status to many more people.

The license page also needs a connection to legal review. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Le 03/02/2011 11:25, Joerg Schilling a écrit :

The license disdussion list from redhat is not helpful. Mr. Callaway is not a lawyer and you close to never see any legally reasoned statement in that list.

I have seen several times references here to a Novell lawyer advice. It's sure that we need some lawyer backup at a moment. However, as long as no *court decision* is made, we can beg than not every lawyer agree together. Even a court decison can be invalidated at some point. so better not too hope on this side jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 11:25:52 +0100 Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:

(this is an information from a fedora member!).

I'm an opensuse member. So if I would say "opensuse does not like Jörg", it would be an information from an opensuse member. However, it would still mean nothing more than my personal opinion. -- Stefan Seyfried "Dispatch war rocket Ajax to bring back his body!" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:15:04 +0100 Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:

A fedora member told me that Redhat is trying to silently bash some licenses even though they are OSI accepted licenses.

Ok, so I tell you now: opensuse is trying to silently bash some licenses even though they are OSI accepted licenses. See? Now you cann state "An opensuse member told me that opensuse is trying...". Of course that does not make the above sentence true. -- Stefan Seyfried "Dispatch war rocket Ajax to bring back his body!" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On 02/04/2011 12:15 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:

A fedora member told me that Redhat is trying to silently bash some licenses even though they are OSI accepted licenses.

Jörg

Maybe if you reworded the above statement to : "A fedora member told me that Redhat is dissatisfied with some of the OSI accepted licenses and are making moves in the background to have them changed." Your statement would have more credibility. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On 02/04/2011 05:40 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:

Dave Plater wrote:

...

On 02/04/2011 12:15 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:

...

A fedora member told me that Redhat is trying to silently bash some licenses even though they are OSI accepted licenses.

Jörg

Maybe if you reworded the above statement to : "A fedora member told me that Redhat is dissatisfied with some of the OSI accepted licenses and are making moves in the background to have them changed." Your statement would have more credibility.

So you believe that an incorrect statement would give more credibility?

This looks strange, but is seems to be aligned with the way some people act in cdrtools related discussions.....

Jörg

So Redhat have a big hammer and they are bashing a license. I suppose this would be possible with those tin bicycle and dog licenses that existed long ago. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 11:05:59AM +0100, Ciaran Farrell wrote:

On Thursday 03 Feb 2011 11:01:11 jdd wrote:

...

Le 03/02/2011 10:47, Ciaran Farrell a écrit :

...

Then I suggest we just import them.

I'm doing that.

notice fedora have a closed list to discuss licences and other legal problems, we should also have one, do we?

As far as I know, there is no such @opensuse.org list. If there is interest in such a list, I think Henne would be able to create one. I'd suggest something like legal-opinion@opensuse.org etc - something to make it quite clear that the discussion on the list is just that - opinion.

Please setup an additional openSUSE list only if there is enough traffic on a particular topic.[0] We already have more than enough lists running. Even that another project already operates such a list isn't a valid argument. And even the anual compact disc burning evergreen thread isn't a good reason. Well, maybe such a list would keep this one a bit more on topic. :) Lars [0] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:How_to_contribute_to_Factory#Communication_C... -- Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ] Samba Team SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany

On Wednesday 02 Feb 2011 18:40:12 jdd wrote:

Le 02/02/2011 16:38, Martin Schlander a écrit :

...

Don't forget that not only licences need to be considered. Other ("legal") issues can block packages too (e.g. patents and other weirdness).

yes, but this is not something we can do much about :-(

the page

http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Build_Service_application_blacklist

quoted by juergen is nearly perfect,

I work on a new page here:

http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Accepted_licences

Thanks for getting this moving. Would it be helpful to have an exhaustive list of licenses which we classify as 'acceptable', so that a packager could quickly search through the list to determine whether it's worthwhile packaging software which won't be accepted in Factory? Ciaran -- Ciaran Farrell __o cfarrell@suse.de _`\<,_ Phone: +49 (0)911 74053 262 (_)/ (_) SUSE Linux Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409, Nuremberg, Germany /ˈkiː.ræn/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Le 03/02/2011 08:08, Ciaran Farrell a écrit : (b) a variation on an 'accepted' license

For what it's worth, I think the work that Fedora has done on classification is quite good: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

jdd wrote:

...

...

http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Accepted_licences

Thanks for getting this moving. Would it be helpful to have an exhaustive list of licenses which we classify as 'acceptable', so that a packager could quickly search through the list to determine whether it's worthwhile packaging software which won't be accepted in Factory?

yes, it's necessary to end with this. We also have to say *who* is, in the end, responsible of accepting or rejecting the inclusion of a software, and chhosing in what repository it's accepted (OSS, non-OSS, full distro or only OBS)

hints: openSUSE board, creation of a licence team including lawers (easier when the foundation works)

It would definitely help to ask lawyers as e.g. the colums regarding GPL compatibility on the fedora page makes no sense. If you strictly follow the claims from the GPL (even though some claims are violating the law), the GPL would be incompatible to any other license including BSD and if you follow the papers from various lawyers (that explain which parts of the GPL are void because they are in violation with the law), GPLd software can be combined with any other license by creating a collective work. In addition, the GPL is just one of many licenses and it is a mistake to put it into the a central position. In any case, the current suse webpage is not a good starter as it quotes the FSF where a pointer to a _neutral_ organisation without corporate interests would be needed. The Open Source Initiative is such a neutral organisation. The FSF on the other side is no more than a provider of one or more competive products (licenses) and for this reason, it is wise not to rely on statements from the FSF. Important issues for selecting licenses are patent protection and collaborative support, as well the importance of a license. OSSCC.net gives an overview on the "imortant" licenses (those licenses that have been selected by the OSI with the license proliferation project). Please check the table at: http://www.osscc.net/en/licenses.html#compatibility If you weight general usability, patent protection and collaborative support and the fact that there are two major license types (academic and reciprocal/copyleft), it is even possible to select a winner for both classes: The best academic license is the Apache-2.0 license as it is permissive and includes patent protection/defense at the same time. The best reciprocal/copyleft license is the CDDL-1.0 as it does not raise claims that cannot be enforced in court and as it includes patent protection/defense at the same time. This is a result, that has been independently retrieved by OSSCC and some members of the OSI. The OSI however (as a neutral organisation) does not publish such comparisons. In any case, before copying unsourced statements from a non-neutral site, it makes sense to look at the OpenSOource definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and at the list os aproved OSS licenses: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical There are 67 aproved OSS licenses. With licenses that are not in that list, you should be very careful..... Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Le 03/02/2011 11:26, jdd a écrit :

I will include this in the references

done. also added: Notice than the "FSF, GPLv2 and GPLv3 compatibility is written only as reference and as published by the FSF as far as we know, not an openSUSE claim. to be set more simply in the future jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Juergen Weigert wrote:

...

If you strictly follow the claims from the GPL [...], the GPL would be incompatible to any other license including BSD

No. Our legal authorities allow me to consider them compatible. I am happy with that.

You seem to missinterpret my text. You of course may legally combine BSDl and GPL code - but not the way the GPL likes to define things as this violates the US Copyright law and as this does not apply in Europe due to the rules for "terms of business conditions" that permit you to use the most client friendly interpretation in case of confusing or contradicting claims. If you correctly read me: "If you strictly follow the claims from the GPL" you will understand that I am correct. The GPL likes to define that every code combination with the GPL is a so called "derivative work" and that all other code must be under the GPL. Well - the BSDl does not have an explicit permission to modify the license and the lyw forbids to modify the license, so you cannot changethe license of BSD code to GPL. You may however legally correct combine GPL and BSD software as a so called "collective work". Your legal authorities obviously depend on the latter....

...

Please check the table at: http://www.osscc.net/en/licenses.html#compatibility

Thanks for the pointer. This is helpful to start with. Your compatibility table is still too implicit for us. I'd like to see compatibility columns spelled out for the most frequent licenses. GPLv2 compatible: yes/no/? GPLv3 compatible: yes/no/? MPL compatible: yes/no/? ...

Just as a note: the CDDL can be seen as MPLv2 as it fixes several problems with the MPL and European law.

...

In any case, before copying unsourced statements from a non-neutral site, it makes sense to look at the OpenSOource definition [...]

I am not bothered by non-neutral opinion. I have no problem quoting several (even contradicting) sources side by side, as long as we can clearly see who says what.

I sens my comments because there has been only a pointer to one single non-neutral side. I see no problem if there is an abstraction from views by pointing to different opinions. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

jdd wrote:

Le 03/02/2011 13:40, Joerg Schilling a écrit :

...

I sens my comments because there has been only a pointer to one single non-neutral side. I see no problem if there is an abstraction from views by pointing to different opinions.

I would *love* to add any pointer to any lawyer argument about licences. (not people like you and me saying "the lawyer said..., but the actual complete document)

You could of course read osscc.net and fetch the pointers to statements from lawyers from that side. You also could look yourself whether you can find more and different opinions in the web. If you find more or different iinformation from lawyers, please keep me informed. I like to list all available opinions at osscc.net. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On 03/02/11 13:06, Joerg Schilling wrote:

jdd wrote:

...

Le 03/02/2011 13:40, Joerg Schilling a écrit :

...

I sens my comments because there has been only a pointer to one single non-neutral side. I see no problem if there is an abstraction from views by pointing to different opinions.

I would *love* to add any pointer to any lawyer argument about licences. (not people like you and me saying "the lawyer said..., but the actual complete document)

You could of course read osscc.net and fetch the pointers to statements from lawyers from that side. You also could look yourself whether you can find more and different opinions in the web. If you find more or different iinformation from lawyers, please keep me informed. I like to list all available opinions at osscc.net.

Jörg

OK so osscc.net offers a true and objective view. There I read, correct me if I paraphrase wrongly, that GPL is unlawful and a thoroughly odious something or other, but not a license. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Licensed Private Pilot Emeritus IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Senior Staff Specialist, Cricket Coach Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

jdd wrote:

I just add rosen book to the references and dl it for reading, but I need some time to read :-)

The hardest to read stuff is the text from Lothar Determan: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~tlavian/publications/article/Berkeley%20Law%20Jo... but it is also the best reasoned and quoted text (more than 30% of the text are references). Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Le 03/02/2011 16:00, Joerg Schilling a écrit :

The hardest to read stuff is the text from Lothar Determan:

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~tlavian/publications/article/Berkeley%20Law%20Jo...

the link is broken :-( but this one works http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~tlavian/publications/article/Berkeley_Law_Journa... jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Joerg Schilling schrieb:

Just as a note: the CDDL can be seen as MPLv2 as it fixes several problems with the MPL and European law.

From all I know, the Mozilla lawyers disagree here in that there are a few clauses in the CDDL that a project like Mozilla would never adopt, esp. those that make it hard to use the code under or together with other licenses. IANAL though, you'd need to consult with the Mozilla lawyers to hear the very specifics of that. Robert Kaiser -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:39:45 +0100, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:

...

From all I know, the Mozilla lawyers disagree here in that there are a few clauses in the CDDL that a project like Mozilla would never adopt,

You are definitely wrong here - sorry I have no idea where you gor this from.

It seems like you're shooting the messenger as Robert reported what Mozilla lawyers said. So if at all you have to blame Mozilla lawyers but certainly not Robert.

to understand that you are wrong.

See above why *you* err. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 22:30:36 +0100, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:

I have no idea on why you try to distract from the original wrong claim you send and that I replied to?

I never did claim anything as I'm not Robert Kaiser as you can easily see when you look at the From: field of this message or at the name with which I signed. Does that look like Robert?

and your wrong reply was:

I didn't reply anything in this thread before trying to point out that your blaming the wrong person. Over and out. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Juergen Weigert schrieb:

MPL compatible: yes/no/?

Be careful there and add the version, as MPLv1 is a bit of a different beast in terms of compatibility than the very-soon-upcoming MPLv2 (I guess if you're interested in licenses, you saw the alphas and betas of it already). Robert Kaiser -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On 02/03/2011 12:19 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:

Le 03/02/2011 08:08, Ciaran Farrell a écrit :

(b) a variation on an 'accepted' license

...

For what it's worth, I think the work that Fedora has done on classification is quite good: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

jdd wrote:

...

...

...

http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Accepted_licences

Thanks for getting this moving. Would it be helpful to have an exhaustive list of licenses which we classify as 'acceptable', so that a packager could quickly search through the list to determine whether it's worthwhile packaging software which won't be accepted in Factory?

...

yes, it's necessary to end with this. We also have to say *who* is, in the end, responsible of accepting or rejecting the inclusion of a software, and chhosing in what repository it's accepted (OSS, non-OSS, full distro or only OBS)

hints: openSUSE board, creation of a licence team including lawers (easier when the foundation works)

It would definitely help to ask lawyers as e.g. the colums regarding GPL compatibility on the fedora page makes no sense. If you strictly follow the claims from the GPL (even though some claims are violating the law), the GPL would be incompatible to any other license including BSD and if you follow the papers from various lawyers (that explain which parts of the GPL are void because they are in violation with the law), GPLd software can be combined with any other license by creating a collective work. In addition, the GPL is just one of many licenses and it is a mistake to put it into the a central position.

In any case, the current suse webpage is not a good starter as it quotes the FSF where a pointer to a _neutral_ organisation without corporate interests would be needed. The Open Source Initiative is such a neutral organisation. The FSF on the other side is no more than a provider of one or more competive products (licenses) and for this reason, it is wise not to rely on statements from the FSF.

Important issues for selecting licenses are patent protection and collaborative support, as well the importance of a license. OSSCC.net gives an overview on the "imortant" licenses (those licenses that have been selected by the OSI with the license proliferation project).

Please check the table at:

http://www.osscc.net/en/licenses.html#compatibility

If you weight general usability, patent protection and collaborative support and the fact that there are two major license types (academic and reciprocal/copyleft), it is even possible to select a winner for both classes:

The best academic license is the Apache-2.0 license as it is permissive and includes patent protection/defense at the same time.

The best reciprocal/copyleft license is the CDDL-1.0 as it does not raise claims that cannot be enforced in court and as it includes patent protection/defense at the same time.

This is a result, that has been independently retrieved by OSSCC and some members of the OSI. The OSI however (as a neutral organisation) does not publish such comparisons.

In any case, before copying unsourced statements from a non-neutral site, it makes sense to look at the OpenSOource definition:

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

and at the list os aproved OSS licenses:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

There are 67 aproved OSS licenses.

With licenses that are not in that list, you should be very careful.....

Jörg

This is your opinion, the page is for productive members of openSUSE to use as a guideline for packaging and for the curious to find out what licenses are acceptable for the distribution. Further the page states that it is under construction and to coin a phrase, "not to be taken as gospel" or not to be taken seriously at the moment. Dave P Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org