Hi all,
I am working on a package for the sFizz project which provides a VST3 plugin, among others. The VST3 SDK from Steinberg is licensed under a compatible license, but imposes extra "guidelines" which has previously seen it be inadmissible in the Fedora repos and lead to some considerable effort to work around. One of the developers of sFizz asked the question on the Steinberg Forum:
https://forums.steinberg.net/t/vst-3-sdk-licensing-faq/201638/20?u=jpcima
Which contains relevant links, however I also received other information from another source that stated:
Section 7: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
Yet someone else countered this with:
Section 7 also contains a list of non-permissive additional terms that *are* allowed to be imposed on top of the gpl
Can someone comment on this please, I'd prefer not to have to strip the VST plugin as it is the preferred format and would take considerable effort to do so.
Pete
IMO, a requirement that a logo be included is not an additional restriction permitted by the GPLv3. Under Section 7(b), it is not a "legal notice" (a trademark is not a notice, it's branding) or an "author attribution" (copyright authorship and branding are entirely different things). It is effectively the opposite of what Sections 7(c), (d) and (e) permit, forcing the misrepresentation of the product if someone has modified the code (the logo indicates that the product is the authentic original software but it may not be if it's been modified), it is forcing using a name for publicity purposes, and it is requiring the use of a trademark, not prohibiting it.
Pam Chestek
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 2:48 PM Pete Savage psavage@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all,
I am working on a package for the sFizz project which provides a VST3 plugin, among others. The VST3 SDK from Steinberg is licensed under a compatible license, but imposes extra "guidelines" which has previously seen it be inadmissible in the Fedora repos and lead to some considerable effort to work around. One of the developers of sFizz asked the question on the Steinberg Forum:
https://forums.steinberg.net/t/vst-3-sdk-licensing-faq/201638/20?u=jpcima
Which contains relevant links, however I also received other information from another source that stated:
Section 7: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
Yet someone else countered this with:
Section 7 also contains a list of non-permissive additional terms that *are* allowed to be imposed on top of the gpl
Can someone comment on this please, I'd prefer not to have to strip the VST plugin as it is the preferred format and would take considerable effort to do so.
Pete
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 11:33 AM Pamela Chestek pchestek@gmail.com wrote:
IMO, a requirement that a logo be included is not an additional restriction permitted by the GPLv3. Under Section 7(b), it is not a "legal notice" (a trademark is not a notice, it's branding) or an "author attribution" (copyright authorship and branding are entirely different things). It is effectively the opposite of what Sections 7(c), (d) and (e) permit, forcing the misrepresentation of the product if someone has modified the code (the logo indicates that the product is the authentic original software but it may not be if it's been modified), it is forcing using a name for publicity purposes, and it is requiring the use of a trademark, not prohibiting it.
IANAL, but it's effectively an advertising clause, though I'm not sure if it's part of the license of the code or the name. The GPL specifically doesn't cover licensing the name itself, so trademark rules can be whatever.
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
To me, this seems a bit different from the usual advertising clauses, which usually say something like “this notice must be reproduced in all copies and derivative works etc etc”.
https://developer.steinberg.help/display/VST/Steinberg+VST+usage+guidelines
The restrictions demand that “whenever ‘VST’ is used, or the SDK is used to create a product, or when the SDK is included”, the logo must be displayed on all web pages related to the product, all documentation for the product, and any physical package for the product.
My not-a-lawyer worry would be that, if these restrictions are enforceable in combination with GPLv3, “Fedora Linux” could be found to be “the product” here.
I’m the maintainer of the giada package in Fedora and the instigator of the original thread on VST3 SDK licensing. I’m very interested to see the final determination on whether or not Section 7 of the GPLv3 provides an “escape hatch” such that VST3 could be acceptable in Fedora after all.
– Ben Beasley
On 7/29/21 2:46 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 11:33 AM Pamela Chestek pchestek@gmail.com wrote:
IMO, a requirement that a logo be included is not an additional restriction permitted by the GPLv3. Under Section 7(b), it is not a "legal notice" (a trademark is not a notice, it's branding) or an "author attribution" (copyright authorship and branding are entirely different things). It is effectively the opposite of what Sections 7(c), (d) and (e) permit, forcing the misrepresentation of the product if someone has modified the code (the logo indicates that the product is the authentic original software but it may not be if it's been modified), it is forcing using a name for publicity purposes, and it is requiring the use of a trademark, not prohibiting it.
IANAL, but it's effectively an advertising clause, though I'm not sure if it's part of the license of the code or the name. The GPL specifically doesn't cover licensing the name itself, so trademark rules can be whatever.
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
-
Ben Beasley -
Neal Gompa -
Pamela Chestek -
Pete Savage