[opensuse-factory] accepted licences
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 -- 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 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 -- 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 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
On 02/02/2011 07:51 PM, jdd wrote:
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
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. Regards Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> 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 Feb 03, 11 21:50:55 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Please think of removing the original BSD license from the list of good licenses.
The old 4-Clause BSD-license is accepted with opensuse. Not prefered due to the advertising clause, but accepted. All licenses are 'bad', as soon as they cause a conflict. 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 02/02/2011 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 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. '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- -- 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 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
jdd <jdd@dodin.org> 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.
A small hint: the GNU "free" documentation license is a non-free license and therfore not accepted by the OSI. 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 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
On 02/02/2011 05:34 PM, Juergen Weigert wrote:
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-
It's used by gnu lilypond for the huge documentation. Dave P. -- 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
Onsdag den 2. februar 2011 13:32:46 skrev jdd:
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
Don't forget that not only licences need to be considered. Other ("legal") issues can block packages too (e.g. patents and other weirdness). -- 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
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
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 <jw@suse.de> 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
Le 02/02/2011 19:27, Nelson Marques a écrit :
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 ?
I just noticed no CC licence is listed by OSI (I wonder why?). 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? Of course I'm nor Picasso nor Bernstein :-)) 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 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
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) -- Eberhard Moenkeberg Arbeitsgruppe IT-Infrastruktur E-Mail: emoenke@gwdg.de Tel.: +49 (0)551 201-1551 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gesellschaft fuer wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung mbH Goettingen (GWDG) Am Fassberg 11, 37077 Goettingen URL: http://www.gwdg.de E-Mail: gwdg@gwdg.de Tel.: +49 (0)551 201-1510 Fax: +49 (0)551 201-2150 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Prof. Dr. Oswald Haan und Dr. Paul Suren Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Christian Griesinger Sitz der Gesellschaft: Goettingen Registergericht: Goettingen Handelsregister-Nr. B 598 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
On Feb 02, 11 18:27:02 +0000, Nelson Marques wrote:
I take this opportunity to make a small question regarding BY-NC-ND. 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 ?
NC restricts to Non-Commercial use only. E.g. CC-NC-ND says: 4.b) You may not exercise any of the rights ... in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.... 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. CC-NC-ND 4b) continues with examples without payments, and allows them. 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? Chances are you get an answer like "No problem. Your distribution is the best advertising my software could get! You do not actually USE the software, do you?" I found, that -- fortunatly -- NC is not a well defined term. Many people appear to seperate 'distribution' from 'use' in this context. I am not advising you to base any business decisions on such private one-time communications. You may learn of misunderstandings or other traps later, if you do. 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
Juergen Weigert <jw@suse.de> 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 Feb 02, 11 20:26:39 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Juergen Weigert <jw@suse.de> 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.
Unless the first one confirms the no-go :-) 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 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 <gp@novell.com> 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
Le 02/02/2011 19:19, Juergen Weigert a écrit :
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.
very good. I think such article is both necessary and very difficult to acheive. the licence problem is an open source nightmare :-( 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 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
Hi, On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Rajko M. wrote:
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.
"Few basic licenses" has to be the goal, everything else will "feed the enemy" in one way or the other. Yes, will, not would. Viele Gruesse Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org) -- Eberhard Moenkeberg Arbeitsgruppe IT-Infrastruktur E-Mail: emoenke@gwdg.de Tel.: +49 (0)551 201-1551 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gesellschaft fuer wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung mbH Goettingen (GWDG) Am Fassberg 11, 37077 Goettingen URL: http://www.gwdg.de E-Mail: gwdg@gwdg.de Tel.: +49 (0)551 201-1510 Fax: +49 (0)551 201-2150 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Prof. Dr. Oswald Haan und Dr. Paul Suren Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Christian Griesinger Sitz der Gesellschaft: Goettingen Registergericht: Goettingen Handelsregister-Nr. B 598 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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
On Thursday 03 Feb 2011 03:03:04 Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Rajko M. wrote:
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.
"Few basic licenses" has to be the goal, everything else will "feed the enemy" in one way or the other. Yes, will, not would.
It would be nice, in theory. In practice we do not have control over the amount of licenses that we see in the various packages. Upstream authors use various licenses (thankfully the majority are the usual suspects) and various variations on licenses. If we were to limit our 'accepted' licenses to a bare minimum, how would you suggest handling: (a) lesser know licenses in an upstream package (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 Also note that there is momentum on harmonising the RPM license tag - not on _what_ should be entered there (each distributor may come to a different conclusion on what the effective license of a binary is) but _how_ it is entered there. The idea would be to see some consistency in how a license is declared (GPL v2 or later, GPLv2+ GPL Version 2 or later) as well as how combinations of licenses are declared (e.g. using a semicolon to denote aggregation - GPLv2+;CDDLv1.0 could be used to show that both licenses are present in the binary, whereas GPLv2+ and CDDLv1.0 would show that there is a choice/dual license). Again, have a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing and the latest specification of the SPDX format: http://www.spdx.org/wiki/working-version-license-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
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
On Thursday 03 Feb 2011 10:32:09 jdd 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
yes, that's what we need
Then I suggest we just import them. I already had a brief discussion with ~spot (Fedora/Red Hat) about this. He's also glad to see improvements in harmonising license shortcuts etc across the distributions... 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 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
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? -- Ralf Lang Linux Consultant / Developer B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537 -- 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
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 -- 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 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
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 -- 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 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 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. -- Regards, Rajko -- 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
Ralf Lang <lang@b1-systems.de> wrote:
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?
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. Also note that redhat is trying to bash some definitely free OSS licenses for unknown reason (this is an information from a fedora member!). 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 11:25, 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
jdd <jdd@dodin.org> wrote:
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
You are of course right, but you should also note that this is a frequently published claim used by people who do not have lawyers that confirm their claims. If lawyers however write well quoted and well reasoned papers and if you find only a single opinion from many lawyers, you can be pretty sure that you are at the right side. Lawyers that give good reasoning for their statments are e.g.: Lawrence Rosen Californian computer law specialist http://rosenlaw.com/ Thomas Gordon Claifornian lawyer working in Germany on automated rule based legal help systems Lothar Determan Professor in law at Freie Universität Berlin and the university of San Francisco This (and because I could not find converse statements in the net) is why I quote them on osscc.net BTW: none of the license related claims on the FSF web pages is sourced with reasoning and many of the claims are in conflict with any statement from lawyers that could be found in the net. For this reason, I recommend to treat the claims from the FSF with care. In general, lawyers that are able to give reasons for their statements and that are able point to the related law paragrahps should be preferred when trying to find the right decision. 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 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
Stefan Seyfried <stefan.seyfried@googlemail.com> wrote:
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.
You seem to be confused...... But I can repeat the same information in different words, maybe you understand them now: A fedora member told me that Redhat is trying to silently bash some licenses even though they are OSI accepted licenses. 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 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
Stefan Seyfried <stefan.seyfried@googlemail.com> wrote:
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...".
OK, thank you for confirming that you are just trolling. If you like to spread nonsense, nobody is interested in that. If however a fedora member asks for an official verification by redhat and returns with such a statement, this is an important information. As you seem to be unwilling or unable to understand this, EOD for me. 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 02/04/2011 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
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> 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 -- 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 02/04/2011 05:40 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> 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 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. 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 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 02/03/2011 12:05 PM, 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.
Ciaran
What would be useful and productive is a list where legal issues related to packaging can be discussed. Further, it should be restricted to prevent what is happening on this list from happening on it, as we can see some people have very strong feelings about licenses which they have difficulty in containing in a civilised manner.. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
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:
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 08:14, Ciaran Farrell a écrit :
On Wednesday 02 Feb 2011 18:40:12 jdd wrote:
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) 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
jdd <jdd@dodin.org> wrote:
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 11:19, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
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
we could add: "compatibility as claimed by the FSF" with the license proliferation project).
Please check the table at:
I will include this in the references
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.....
sure 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 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
On Feb 03, 11 11:19:06 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
hints: openSUSE board, creation of a licence team including lawers (easier when the foundation works)
It would definitely help to ask lawyers. Guess what we do.
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.
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/? ...
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. My first goal is transparency. Identifying the 'best' license is not important. Let's collect data about the most frequent licenses so that we can cover say 95% of our packages could be a goal. With 'data' I mean simple visible statements, regardless if they are debatable, proven or obviously flawed. It was repeatedly claimed that only lawyers should be allowed to work with licenses. This is not true. Most of the above actions require only normal academic diligence, none of them require understanding or an own opinion. If jdd, myself, or any other editor would add comments showing their opinion, I'd beg the community to not give this any particular attention. Jdd, thanks for taking initiative! Actual legal decisions shall be a completely seperated process. Off topic for now. 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
Juergen Weigert <jw@suse.de> 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
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) thanks 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
jdd <jdd@dodin.org> 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
Quoting Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de>:
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
Rrrriiight... osscc.net... independent.... whois: Administrative Contact: Schilling, Joerg <some email address> -- 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<jdd@dodin.org> 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
Le 03/02/2011 14:06, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
You could of course read osscc.net and fetch the pointers to statements from lawyers from that side.
I just add rosen book to the references and dl it for reading, but I need some time to read :-) 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
jdd <jdd@dodin.org> 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 :
but it is also the best reasoned and quoted text (more than 30% of the text are references).
this is not always a good thing :-( thanks 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 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
jdd <jdd@dodin.org> wrote:
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...
Thank you for the hint! this must have changed recently. 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
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
Robert Kaiser <KaiRo@KaiRo.at> wrote:
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.
You are definitely wrong here - sorry I have no idea where you gor this from. I encourage you to read the license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php to understand that you are wrong. 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 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
Philipp Thomas <Philipp.Thomas2@gmx.net> wrote:
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.
I have no idea on why you try to distract from the original wrong claim you send and that I replied to? I did write: Just as a note: the CDDL can be seen as MPLv2 as it fixes several problems with the MPL and European law. and your wrong reply was: From all I know, the Mozilla lawyers disagree here.... which is of course nonsense. The MPL definitely has problems with the European law and it in addition was not written to match the needs of non corparative contributors. 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 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
Hi, On Sat, 5 Feb 2011, Philipp Thomas wrote:
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.
What the fuck is here again never-ending going on. Please someone block this Schilling totally from the mailing list - we must not follow his adventerous point of state every some months again and again, without any real discussion effort. Block him someone, he is stealing our brain! Viele Gruesse Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org) -- Eberhard Moenkeberg Arbeitsgruppe IT-Infrastruktur E-Mail: emoenke@gwdg.de Tel.: +49 (0)551 201-1551 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gesellschaft fuer wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung mbH Goettingen (GWDG) Am Fassberg 11, 37077 Goettingen URL: http://www.gwdg.de E-Mail: gwdg@gwdg.de Tel.: +49 (0)551 201-1510 Fax: +49 (0)551 201-2150 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Prof. Dr. Oswald Haan und Dr. Paul Suren Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Christian Griesinger Sitz der Gesellschaft: Goettingen Registergericht: Goettingen Handelsregister-Nr. B 598 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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
Joerg Schilling schrieb:
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:
I don't think openSUSE should _ever_ be interested in weighing how a license is "better" or "worse" than an other, and - oh my god - NEVER select "winners" among them. Whoever does this has IMHO no understanding of human nature, as that one dictates that there can be no single best thing, on the contrary, for different cases, different measures are necessary - and that's the main reason why there are so many different licenses. Doing a list of which ones are acceptable for openSUSE OSS and what can be accepted in non-OSS is something this project can and should do. Presenting awards to licenses is not the business of a distro. 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 <jdd@dodin.org> wrote:
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
On 02/02/2011 07:40 PM, 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
if somebody could add the flag "work" in progress, I don't know hpwto do :-(
jdd
I was looking down the bad license section and came upon the "unrar" license (ignore the fact it came from my home project, that was for an Ark kde bug) it exists in the main oss distro : rpm -qi unrar Name : unrar Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 4.0.4 Vendor: obs://build.opensuse.org/home:plater Release : 19.1 Build Date: Wed 05 Jan 2011 05:55:10 AM SAST Install Date: Wed 05 Jan 2011 01:43:04 PM SAST Build Host: build18 Group : Productivity/Archiving/Compression Source RPM: unrar-4.0.4-19.1.src.rpm Size : 206368 License: Unrar License. Freely distributable Signature : DSA/SHA1, Wed 05 Jan 2011 05:55:29 AM SAST, Key ID 2f489cba8ecb58c5 URL : http://www.rarlab.com Summary : A program to extract, test, and view RAR archives Description : The unRAR utility is a freeware program distributed with source code and developed for extracting, testing, and viewing the contents of archives created with the RAR archiver. Authors: -------- Eugene Roshal <roshal@creabel.com> Distribution: home:plater / openSUSE_11.3 So it seems that openSUSE's perception of at least one license differs from fedora's. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
participants (17)
-
Ciaran Farrell -
Dave Plater -
Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar -
Eberhard Moenkeberg -
Gerald Pfeifer -
jdd -
Joerg.Schilling＠fokus.fraunhofer.de -
Juergen Weigert -
Lars Müller -
Martin Schlander -
Nelson Marques -
Philipp Thomas -
Rajko M. -
Ralf Lang -
Robert Kaiser -
Sid Boyce -
Stefan Seyfried