[opensuse-factory] Is KDE3 illegal?
I received numerous bugreports regarding KDE3 packages from the legal team. It is very strange given that the packages are essentially the same as were packaged in openSUSE previously. One such bugreport says: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719453 === ksim and kgpg contains the GPL-2.0 files listed below. I can't immediately see from the spec file where the source code is compiled into but the spec file should definitely denote the package (or subpackage of applicable) as GPL-2.0. kdeutils-3.5.10/kgpg/conf_encryption.ui.h kdeutils-3.5.10/kgpg/keyexport.ui.h kdeutils-3.5.10/kgpg/kgpgrevokewidget.ui.h kdeutils-3.5.10/kgpg/newkey.ui.h kdeutils-3.5.10/ksim/monitors/lm_sensors/NVCtrl.c kdeutils-3.5.10/ksim/monitors/lm_sensors/NVCtrl.h kdeutils-3.5.10/ksim/monitors/lm_sensors/nv_control.h kdeutils-3.5.10/superkaramba/examples/taskBar/cleanbar/README Also, there are numerous header files in klaptopdaemon licensed under the MPL-1.0 (which is incompatible with the GPL-2.0). Please check if these files are used. If they are, we need to determine how we can resolve the GPL compatibility issue. kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/bulkmem.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/ciscode.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/cisreg.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/cistpl.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/cs.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/cs_types.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/driver_ops.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/ds.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/ftl.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/k_compat.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/mem_op.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/memory.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/ss.h === If the licenses of the components of KDE3 are incompatible with each other how it happened that so many distributions included KDE3? Did all of them break the law? Should we reconsider these legal issues after KDE3 has been already published and included in distributions for years? How can it turn that much-used and beloved software at once becomes "illegal"? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Sep 21, 11 20:56:43 +0400, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
I received numerous bugreports regarding KDE3 packages from the legal team.
Looks like a false declaration of some copied kernel headers to me.
=== ksim and kgpg contains the GPL-2.0 files listed below. I can't immediately see from the spec file where the source code is compiled into but the spec file should definitely denote the package (or subpackage of applicable) as GPL-2.0.
kdeutils-3.5.10/kgpg/conf_encryption.ui.h kdeutils-3.5.10/kgpg/keyexport.ui.h kdeutils-3.5.10/kgpg/kgpgrevokewidget.ui.h kdeutils-3.5.10/kgpg/newkey.ui.h kdeutils-3.5.10/ksim/monitors/lm_sensors/NVCtrl.c kdeutils-3.5.10/ksim/monitors/lm_sensors/NVCtrl.h kdeutils-3.5.10/ksim/monitors/lm_sensors/nv_control.h kdeutils-3.5.10/superkaramba/examples/taskBar/cleanbar/README
Also, there are numerous header files in klaptopdaemon licensed under the MPL-1.0 (which is incompatible with the GPL-2.0). Please check if these files are used. If they are, we need to determine how we can resolve the GPL compatibility issue.
kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/bulkmem.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/ciscode.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/cisreg.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/cistpl.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/cs.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/cs_types.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/driver_ops.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/ds.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/ftl.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/k_compat.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/mem_op.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/memory.h kdeutils-3.5.10/klaptopdaemon/linux/ss.h ===
If the licenses of the components of KDE3 are incompatible with each other how it happened that so many distributions included KDE3? Did all of them break the law?
Should we reconsider these legal issues after KDE3 has been already published and included in distributions for years? How can it turn that much-used and beloved software at once becomes "illegal"?
This is fallout from improving our legal review machinery. I would asume that there was no change in the packages and that the issues have been in there for a long time, and nobody discovered them up to now. Not much harm done, unless the "incompatibility" can be proven be on purpose. Which I doubt, in this case. 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: Jeff Hawn, J.Guild, F.Imendoerffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg), Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany 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 Wednesday 21 September 2011 22:09:26 Juergen Weigert wrote:
I received numerous bugreports regarding KDE3 packages from the legal team.
Looks like a false declaration of some copied kernel headers to me.
In what sense false? Yes these files are nearly identical to those in kernel, but I fail to see how it can help here. Also aren't headers not covered by copyright? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Sep 21, 11 22:24:13 +0400, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Wednesday 21 September 2011 22:09:26 Juergen Weigert wrote:
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719453 Looks like a false declaration of some copied kernel headers to me.
In what sense false?
I thought of copy&paste mess, when I said this. But there are other possibilities too. The files we see in KDE from 1998. Maybe just outdated bitrot there.
Yes these files are nearly identical to those in kernel, but I fail to see how it can help here.
Nearly identical is a good indicator that they should have compatible licenses.
Also aren't headers not covered by copyright? They are. This makes it unlikely that the same copyright owner declares a file as MPL here and as GPL there.
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: Jeff Hawn, J.Guild, F.Imendoerffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg), Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany 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 Thursday 22 September 2011 02:07:06 Juergen Weigert wrote:
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719453 Looks like a false declaration of some copied kernel headers to me.
In what sense false?
I thought of copy&paste mess, when I said this. But there are other possibilities too. The files we see in KDE from 1998. Maybe just outdated bitrot there.
Yes these files are nearly identical to those in kernel, but I fail to see how it can help here.
Nearly identical is a good indicator that they should have compatible licenses.
Also aren't headers not covered by copyright? They are. This makes it unlikely that the same copyright owner declares a file as MPL here and as GPL there.
What could be a resolution of this issue? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Thursday, September 22, 2011 02:15:40 Ilya Chernykh wrote:
On Thursday 22 September 2011 02:07:06 Juergen Weigert wrote:
Looks like a false declaration of some copied kernel headers to me.
In what sense false?
I thought of copy&paste mess, when I said this. But there are other possibilities too. The files we see in KDE from 1998. Maybe just outdated bitrot there.
Yes these files are nearly identical to those in kernel, but I fail to see how it can help here.
Nearly identical is a good indicator that they should have compatible licenses.
Also aren't headers not covered by copyright?
They are. This makes it unlikely that the same copyright owner declares a file as MPL here and as GPL there.
What could be a resolution of this issue?
Pleasse bring up the issue on the KDE mailing lists. Andras -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 21 September 2011 22:09:26 Juergen Weigert wrote:
This is fallout from improving our legal review machinery. I would asume that there was no change in the packages and that the issues have been in there for a long time, and nobody discovered them up to now.
Not much harm done, unless the "incompatibility" can be proven be on purpose. Which I doubt, in this case.
Reportedly the same issue affects KDE4 as well -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Ilya Chernykh schrieb:
Reportedly the same issue affects KDE4 as well
If that's the MPL 1.0 vs. GPL issue, I hope that those will be able to switch to vanilla MPL2 (which is currently in RC) as that has GPL compatibility baked in by default (with confirmation from the FSF that it can be done this way). Robert Kaiser -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
participants (4)
-
Andras Mantia -
Ilya Chernykh -
Juergen Weigert -
KaiRo - Robert Kaiser