Antonio Querubin writes:
..."
and various typical accountability/liability conditions follow. To me the intent seems that it's open source and modification and redistribution is allowed.
thats pretty funny...that you left out the specific bits of the license that actually matter....
Here's a question for you...is the license under which pine is distributed OSI approved? http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
Now i'm not suggesting that an OSI approved license is necessary for fedora inclusion, because i don't know if thats true or not. But maybe... exactly how the pine license works and restrictions on it are subtle enough so that the mind-numbingly pedantic bits of the license that you didn't cut and paste to the list are not 'typical accountability/liability conditions' at all. I humbly submit that if the license is not OSI approved its got some subtle strings attached that make it problematic. I don't claim to understand those strings, and I doubt you do either. But you know...i bet this license has come up for OSI consideration in the past, and there is probably discussion archived on the OSI relevant mailinglists that you can research if you care enough to want to understand.
-jef"is perfectly happy to accept the fact that the pine license is not OSI approved and thus not acceptable"spaleta
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Jef Spaleta wrote:
Antonio Querubin writes:
..."
and various typical accountability/liability conditions follow. To me the intent seems that it's open source and modification and redistribution is allowed.
thats pretty funny...that you left out the specific bits of the license that actually matter....
Only to keep the email short. Not being a lawyer I have no idea how relevant the specific bits are.
Here's a question for you...is the license under which pine is distributed OSI approved? http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
Now i'm not suggesting that an OSI approved license is necessary for fedora inclusion, because i don't know if thats true or not. But
Doesn't look like it's on the list and neither am I sure what's required for Fedora inclusion.
maybe... exactly how the pine license works and restrictions on it are subtle enough so that the mind-numbingly pedantic bits of the license that you didn't cut and paste to the list are not 'typical accountability/liability conditions' at all.
Ok, for discussion sake here's the remainder of the copyright. If anybody spots any red flags in there perhaps they could point it out.
"(1) modified versions are distributed with source code and documentation and with permission for others to use any code and documentation (whether in original or modified versions) as granted under this license;
(2) if modified, the source code, documentation, and user run-time elements should be clearly labeled by placing an identifier of origin (such as a name, initial, or other tag) after the version number;
(3) users, modifiers, distributors, and others coming into possession or using the Distribution in original or modified form accept the entire risk as to the possession, use, and performance of the Distribution;
(4) this copyright management information (software identifier and version number, copyright notice and license) shall be retained in all versions of the Distribution;
(5) the University of Washington may make modifications to the Distribution that are substantially similar to modified versions of the Distribution, and may make, use, sell, copy, distribute, publicly display, and perform such modifications, including making such modifications available under this or other licenses, without obligation or restriction;
(6) modifications incorporating code, libraries, and/or documentation subject to any other open source license may be made, and the resulting work may be distributed under the terms of such open source license if required by that open source license, but doing so will not affect this Distribution, other modifications made under this license or modifications made under other University of Washington licensing arrangements;
(7) no permission is granted to distribute, publicly display, or publicly perform modifications to the Distribution made using proprietary materials that cannot be released in source format under conditions of this license;
(8) the name of the University of Washington may not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to Distribution of the software without specific, prior written permission.
This software is made available "as is", and
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND IN NO EVENT SHALL THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) OR STRICT LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE."
I humbly submit that if the license is not OSI approved its got some subtle strings attached that make it problematic. I don't claim to understand those strings, and I doubt you do either. But you know...i bet this license has come up for OSI consideration in the past, and there is probably discussion archived on the OSI relevant mailinglists that you can research if you care enough to want to understand.
Searching now...
Antonio Querubin writes:
Ok, for discussion sake here's the remainder of the copyright. If anybody spots any red flags in there perhaps they could point it out.
[ … ]
(5) the University of Washington may make modifications to the Distribution that are substantially similar to modified versions of the Distribution, and may make, use, sell, copy, distribute, publicly display, and perform such modifications, including making such modifications available under this or other licenses, without obligation or restriction;
That's the red flag right there. This clause makes UW-IMAP's license incompatible with the GPL.
The University of Washington reserves the right to acquire any changes you've made to their software, and use it for their own purposes and release it under other licenses.
This has more in common with Microsoft's Shared Source license, rather than any OSI-approved license. The only substantive difference is that you do not have to pay $100,000 to the University of Washington in order to obtain the source code.
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 18:57, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Antonio Querubin writes:
Ok, for discussion sake here's the remainder of the copyright. If anybody spots any red flags in there perhaps they could point it out.
[ … ]
(5) the University of Washington may make modifications to the Distribution that are substantially similar to modified versions of the Distribution, and may make, use, sell, copy, distribute, publicly display, and perform such modifications, including making such modifications available under this or other licenses, without obligation or restriction;
That's the red flag right there. This clause makes UW-IMAP's license incompatible with the GPL.
So what. There are other valid opensource licenses. This is actually mostly a mute point since redhat controls the distribution and they determine what they are comfortable including from a licensing perspective.
The University of Washington reserves the right to acquire any changes you've made to their software, and use it for their own purposes and release it under other licenses.
This doesn't say that. It simply says that if they like something a distributor did they can copy the functionality and resdistribute it. It doesn't imply they own local changes at all. In fact other points in the license specifically address that.
This has more in common with Microsoft's Shared Source license, rather than any OSI-approved license. The only substantive difference is that you do not have to pay $100,000 to the University of Washington in order to obtain the source code.
IMHO this is nothing like the M$ SSL. Its a pretty open, permissive license. Unfortunately redhat apparently doesn't agree so if I want pine I'll have to get it and install it myself. No biggie. But lets not paint the picture to make the University of Washington bad guys. I don't see them that way.
Mike
Michael Dickson writes:
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 18:57, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Antonio Querubin writes:
Ok, for discussion sake here's the remainder of the copyright. If anybody spots any red flags in there perhaps they could point it out.
[ … ]
(5) the University of Washington may make modifications to the Distribution that are substantially similar to modified versions of the Distribution, and may make, use, sell, copy, distribute, publicly display, and perform such modifications, including making such modifications available under this or other licenses, without obligation or restriction;
That's the red flag right there. This clause makes UW-IMAP's license incompatible with the GPL.
So what. There are other valid opensource licenses. This is actually mostly a mute point since redhat controls the distribution and they determine what they are comfortable including from a licensing perspective.
The University of Washington reserves the right to acquire any changes you've made to their software, and use it for their own purposes and release it under other licenses.
This doesn't say that.
What part of “including making such modifications available under this or other licenses, without obligation or restriction” doesn't say that?
It simply says that if they like something a
distributor did they can copy the functionality and resdistribute it.
Not only that, they can take it and release it under "other licenses", meaning that after you've invested a lot of your own time making extensive contributions to the UW server, bringing a lot of value-added functionality, they can simply take their toys with them, cease distributing UW-IMAP's source code, and instead launch a commercial product, based partially on your work, without any obligations to you.
This is one of the things that the GPL precisely prevents.
It doesn't imply they own local changes at all.
They automatically own any patches or improvements that you publish. The wording is very plain.
In fact other points in
the license specifically address that.
What other points?
This has more in common with Microsoft's Shared Source license, rather than any OSI-approved license. The only substantive difference is that you do not have to pay $100,000 to the University of Washington in order to obtain the source code.
IMHO this is nothing like the M$ SSL. Its a pretty open, permissive license. Unfortunately redhat apparently doesn't agree so if I want pine I'll have to get it and install it myself. No biggie. But lets not paint the picture to make the University of Washington bad guys. I don't see them that way.
They are not "bad guys", but I agree that the UW-IMAP server's licensing is not compatible with the Fedora project (although this was originally a pine thread, it drifted to the server's license, however note that pine's license is even more incompatible).
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 08:12:08PM -0500, Michael Dickson wrote:
This doesn't say that. It simply says that if they like something a distributor did they can copy the functionality and resdistribute it. It doesn't imply they own local changes at all. In fact other points in the license specifically address that.
As far as I know, the problem is not so much whether the license Pine is released under is GPL-compatible or not. There are many other applications in Red Hat and Fedora released under other licenses that, as in the case of the BSD license, allow anyone to grab your contribution and release them as a part of a proprietary closed-source solution. What originally caused the problem with Pine's license even before Fedora was created was the express prohibition to distribute a modified version of the application. I'm pretty certain this issue was discussed in some Red Hat lists in the past, but right now all I can find is an email from one of Debian's lists clarifying the issue:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/debian-legal-200008/msg00147.html
---------------- Nitebirdz http://www.sacredchaos.com/
Once upon a time, Sam Varshavchik mrsam@courier-mta.com said:
That's the red flag right there. This clause makes UW-IMAP's license incompatible with the GPL.
The GPL is but one of many Open Source licenses.
The University of Washington reserves the right to acquire any changes you've made to their software, and use it for their own purposes and release it under other licenses.
How is this different from the BSD license (which is OSI approved), except for the restriction that UW is the only one allowed to take your distributed change and use it under another license? With the BSD license, _anyone_ can take your distributed change and turn it into closed-source software.
This has more in common with Microsoft's Shared Source license, rather than any OSI-approved license.
See above. It has much more in common with the BSD license, except that only UW can use your change under a different license (Microsoft can and has used code under the BSD license in their closed-source software).
I do not see anything in the UW IMAP license that would exclude it from Fedora. The UW IMAP license is _different_ from the Pine license that was mentioned earlier that is not compatible with the Fedora Project.
Chris Adams writes:
Once upon a time, Sam Varshavchik mrsam@courier-mta.com said:
The University of Washington reserves the right to acquire any changes you've made to their software, and use it for their own purposes and release it under other licenses.
How is this different from the BSD license (which is OSI approved),
The difference is that you can relicense BSD stuff under the GPL, in prevent someone else from taking your work and closing it.
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Antonio Querubin wrote:
(6) modifications incorporating code, libraries, and/or documentation subject to any other open source license may be made, and the resulting work may be distributed under the terms of such open source license if required by that open source license, but doing so will not affect this Distribution, other modifications made under this license or modifications made under other University of Washington licensing arrangements;
Doesn't it give you the permission to relicense? Just write a small GPL library to add an eye-candy and link them and release under GPL. Then the whole UW license is void. Smells like jail but enough to persuade Debian-like license-strict people.
BTW, PINE is not released under this licese. This is the one for uw-imap2004 IIRC. PINE's legal status can be found here: http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html (also everyone knows what a hell it is)
behdad
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Jef Spaleta wrote:
doubt you do either. But you know...i bet this license has come up for OSI consideration in the past, and there is probably discussion archived on the OSI relevant mailinglists that you can research if you care enough to want to understand.
Found a whole thread on this and now my head hurts. I guess the bottom line is figuring out what's really acceptable for Fedora inclusion. I'm beginning to like the FreeBSD ports system better.
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 03:04:15PM -1000, Antonio Querubin wrote:
doubt you do either. But you know...i bet this license has come up for OSI consideration in the past, and there is probably discussion archived on the OSI relevant mailinglists that you can research if you care enough to want to understand.
Found a whole thread on this and now my head hurts. I guess the bottom line is figuring out what's really acceptable for Fedora inclusion. I'm beginning to like the FreeBSD ports system better.
Remember nothing in the Fedora setup dictates outside the core/extra/add-on part of Fedora. So people can go register "richardstallmansworsenightmare.org" and put yum repositories of stuff on it if they wish, how they like.
It has always been the assumption people would do that, be it for stuff that is non-free (eg the flash rpms) .. whatever