[opensuse-packaging] Mixed license problem
Hi all, I'm trying to get a package into Factory but legal says there's a problem with the embedded proprietary artwork licensing terms. Said material is indispensable to the program. Upstream tells me they could relicense it under CC-BY-ND-4.0, with the rest of the code being GPL-3.0 or LGPL-3.0: were this the case, would Factory accept it? Regards -- View this message in context: http://opensuse.14.x6.nabble.com/Mixed-license-problem-tp5094424.html Sent from the opensuse-packaging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 2017-08-29 18:37, Luigi Baldoni wrote:
Upstream tells me they could relicense it under CC-BY-ND-4.0, with the rest of the code being GPL-3.0 or LGPL-3.0: were this the case, would Factory accept it?
ND is no-derivative, which is, in a sense, against the free spirit to be able to modify (and then reshare) the work. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Jan Engelhardt-4 wrote
On Tuesday 2017-08-29 18:37, Luigi Baldoni wrote:
Upstream tells me they could relicense it under CC-BY-ND-4.0, with the rest of the code being GPL-3.0 or LGPL-3.0: were this the case, would Factory accept it?
ND is no-derivative, which is, in a sense, against the free spirit to be able to modify (and then reshare) the work.
I understand that, but are there hard rules in that regard? By the way, I'm sure there are other packages (e.g. libreoffice) in which the official logo could not be altered and redistributes lest it diluted the brand. Although that's perhaps more of a trademark than a copyright concern... Regards -- View this message in context: http://opensuse.14.x6.nabble.com/Mixed-license-problem-tp5094424p5094432.htm... Sent from the opensuse-packaging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Am 29.08.2017 um 19:16 schrieb Luigi Baldoni:
Jan Engelhardt-4 wrote
On Tuesday 2017-08-29 18:37, Luigi Baldoni wrote:
Upstream tells me they could relicense it under CC-BY-ND-4.0, with the rest of the code being GPL-3.0 or LGPL-3.0: were this the case, would Factory accept it?
ND is no-derivative, which is, in a sense, against the free spirit to be able to modify (and then reshare) the work.
I understand that, but are there hard rules in that regard?
Yes, there are rules: https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines#Code_vs_Content Greetings, Stephan -- Ma muaß weiterkämpfen, kämpfen bis zum Umfalln, a wenn die ganze Welt an Arsch offen hat, oder grad deswegn. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Stephan Kulow-3 wrote
Sorry, but CC0 is not the same situation as CC-BY-ND. CC0 is basically public domain while ND is not open source.
I thought ND was nonfree, but not necessarily closed source. Stephan Kulow-3 wrote
Am 29.08.2017 um 19:16 schrieb Luigi Baldoni:
I understand that, but are there hard rules in that regard?
Yes, there are rules: https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines#Code_vs_Content
I read that and I'm still nowhere near clarity in regard to my original question. The content is not religious nor pornographic, just nonfree. Does that make it "open source compatible"? Because according to FSF it's compatible with GPL-3.0: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/cc-by-4-0-and-cc-by-sa-4-0-added-to-our-... . Regards -- Sent from: http://opensuse.14.x6.nabble.com/opensuse-packaging-f3359936.html -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 2017-08-30 08:38, Luigi Baldoni wrote:
Stephan Kulow-3 wrote
Sorry, but CC0 is not the same situation as CC-BY-ND. CC0 is basically public domain while ND is not open source.
I thought ND was nonfree, but not necessarily closed source.
[...] Because according to FSF it's compatible with GPL-3.0: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/cc-by-4-0-and-cc-by-sa-4-0-added-to-our-...
Pay attention: CC-BY-4.0 and CC-BY-SA-4.0 has been classified as libre. CC-BY-ND-4.0, however, has not. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Jan Engelhardt-4 wrote
On Wednesday 2017-08-30 08:38, Luigi Baldoni wrote:
Stephan Kulow-3 wrote
Sorry, but CC0 is not the same situation as CC-BY-ND. CC0 is basically public domain while ND is not open source.
I thought ND was nonfree, but not necessarily closed source.
[...] Because according to FSF it's compatible with GPL-3.0: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/cc-by-4-0-and-cc-by-sa-4-0-added-to-our-...
Pay attention: CC-BY-4.0 and CC-BY-SA-4.0 has been classified as libre. CC-BY-ND-4.0, however, has not.
Right, major brainfart on my part. Do you think this is final? How can I get in touch with legal to find out which license would be acceptable? Regards -- Sent from: http://opensuse.14.x6.nabble.com/opensuse-packaging-f3359936.html -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On 08/30/2017 08:38 AM, Luigi Baldoni wrote:
Stephan Kulow-3 wrote
Sorry, but CC0 is not the same situation as CC-BY-ND. CC0 is basically public domain while ND is not open source.
I thought ND was nonfree, but not necessarily closed source.
Stephan Kulow-3 wrote
Am 29.08.2017 um 19:16 schrieb Luigi Baldoni:
I understand that, but are there hard rules in that regard?
Yes, there are rules: https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines#Code_vs_Content
I read that and I'm still nowhere near clarity in regard to my original question. The content is not religious nor pornographic, just nonfree. Does that make it "open source compatible"?
No, it's not. But that doesn't matter as for opensuse packages we differ between code and content - your artwork is content and as such different rules apply. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Hi, I had a very similar situation with the program hollywood, see https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/utilities/hollywood The artwork is CC0 and the code is Apache-2.0. Are other distros shipping this package? If yes, how are they dealing with it? Sebastian On 08/29/2017 06:37 PM, Luigi Baldoni wrote:
Hi all, I'm trying to get a package into Factory but legal says there's a problem with the embedded proprietary artwork licensing terms. Said material is indispensable to the program.
Upstream tells me they could relicense it under CC-BY-ND-4.0, with the rest of the code being GPL-3.0 or LGPL-3.0: were this the case, would Factory accept it?
Regards
-- View this message in context: http://opensuse.14.x6.nabble.com/Mixed-license-problem-tp5094424.html Sent from the opensuse-packaging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-- python programming - mail server - photo - video - https://sebix.at cryptographic key at https://sebix.at/DC9B463B.asc and on public keyservers
Am 29.08.2017 um 18:56 schrieb Sebastian:
Hi,
I had a very similar situation with the program hollywood, see https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/utilities/hollywood The artwork is CC0 and the code is Apache-2.0.
Sorry, but CC0 is not the same situation as CC-BY-ND. CC0 is basically public domain while ND is not open source. Greetings, Stephan -- Ma muaß weiterkämpfen, kämpfen bis zum Umfalln, a wenn die ganze Welt an Arsch offen hat, oder grad deswegn. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On 30/08/17 02:26, Sebastian wrote:
Hi,
I had a very similar situation with the program hollywood, see https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/utilities/hollywood The artwork is CC0 and the code is Apache-2.0.
Are other distros shipping this package? If yes, how are they dealing with it?
Sebastian
Debian didn't ship Firefox as Firefox for a number of years for a similar kind of reason (you couldn't modify its logo) but I guess they had slightly different wording in there licenses as we didn't seem to have an issue.
On 08/29/2017 06:37 PM, Luigi Baldoni wrote:
Hi all, I'm trying to get a package into Factory but legal says there's a problem with the embedded proprietary artwork licensing terms. Said material is indispensable to the program.
Upstream tells me they could relicense it under CC-BY-ND-4.0, with the rest of the code being GPL-3.0 or LGPL-3.0: were this the case, would Factory accept it?
Regards
-- View this message in context: http://opensuse.14.x6.nabble.com/Mixed-license-problem-tp5094424.html Sent from the opensuse-packaging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
participants (5)
-
Jan Engelhardt -
Luigi Baldoni -
Sebastian -
Simon Lees -
Stephan Kulow