[gentoo-dev] License for Google Chrome

[gentoo-dev] License for Google Chrome

[Mike Gilbert]

I have been maintaining an ebuild for Google Chrome in an overlay. It
basically extracts a deb file to /opt. This serves as an easy
alternative for people who do not have the patience to compile
Chromium.

Now that I have developer access, I would like to move this to the
tree. Before doing so, I need some advice on how to deal with the
EULA[1].

I think clause 2.2 (B) allows me to avoid a fetch restriction.

I think clause 5.3 prohibits mirroring.

Do I need to worry about anything else here?

[1] http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html

Re: [gentoo-dev] License for Google Chrome

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 26/08/2011 11:06 μμ, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> I have been maintaining an ebuild for Google Chrome in an overlay.
> It basically extracts a deb file to /opt. This serves as an easy 
> alternative for people who do not have the patience to compile 
> Chromium.
> 
YES! please do that :)

> Now that I have developer access, I would like to move this to the 
> tree. Before doing so, I need some advice on how to deal with the 
> EULA[1].
> 
> I think clause 2.2 (B) allows me to avoid a fetch restriction.
It is not clear to me how this clause has anything to do with fetch
restrictions.

> 
> I think clause 5.3 prohibits mirroring.
Yes, I agree

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
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=gf+F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] License for Google Chrome

[Mike Gilbert]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I think clause 2.2 (B) allows me to avoid a fetch restriction.
> It is not clear to me how this clause has anything to do with fetch
> restrictions.
>

Perhaps I used the wrong term here. I mean that 2.2 (B) allows the
user to download and install the software without having to explicitly
click the "Agree" button on the software download page.

Re: [gentoo-dev] License for Google Chrome

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Perhaps I used the wrong term here. I mean that 2.2 (B) allows the
> user to download and install the software without having to explicitly
> click the "Agree" button on the software download page.

I did not review the Chrome license, but speaking generally:

1.  RESTRICT=mirror must be used if anything in the license prevents
free redistribution.  I'd suggest that if the license isn't OSDL
approved give it a VERY close look.  Simply mirroring a file is a
violation of copyright law, and so Gentoo MUST accept license terms to
do it.

2.  RESTRICT=fetch generally is only needed if there is no reliable
way to fetch a file (such as if upstream doesn't provide a stable URL,
sticks the file behind an interactive website, etc).  Gentoo does not
need to accept a license to allow users to fetch a file directly, so
the EULA/license in itself doesn't necessarily force us to use
RESTRICT=fetch.  Most of the time this is a moot point, as upstreams
that are concerned with forcing people to accept EULAs tend to not
provide stable URLs.  If upstream raised a stink over using a stable
URL we would probably give serious thought to blocking fetches - in
theory not doing so is legal, but many people have been successfully
sued for providing links, or for deep-linking.

Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: License for Google Chrome

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 556 bytes --]

Il giorno sab, 27/08/2011 alle 08.23 -0400, Rich Freeman ha scritto:
> Gentoo does not
> need to accept a license to allow users to fetch a file directly, so
> the EULA/license in itself doesn't necessarily force us to use
> RESTRICT=fetch. 

Let me try to use this point to remind that "unclear patent status" is
generally not a good reason to RESTRICT=fetch.. maybe RESTRICT=mirror,
but definitely not fetch.

Otherwise probably half the tree wouldn't be fetchable in US...

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] License for Google Chrome

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 26-08-2011 22:06, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> I have been maintaining an ebuild for Google Chrome in an overlay.
> It basically extracts a deb file to /opt. This serves as an easy 
> alternative for people who do not have the patience to compile 
> Chromium.
> 
> Now that I have developer access, I would like to move this to the 
> tree. Before doing so, I need some advice on how to deal with the 
> EULA[1].
> 
> I think clause 2.2 (B) allows me to avoid a fetch restriction.
> 
> I think clause 5.3 prohibits mirroring.
> 
> Do I need to worry about anything else here?
> 
> [1] http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html

Mike,

when you have doubts about a license and mail the gentoo-dev ml, also cc
the licenses alias.
I'm curious, but does Google release a pre-compiled binary that you can
use as chrome-bin?

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=2ayy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] License for Google Chrome

[Mike Gilbert]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
<jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> when you have doubts about a license and mail the gentoo-dev ml, also cc
> the licenses alias.

Will do.

> I'm curious, but does Google release a pre-compiled binary that you can
> use as chrome-bin?
>

That is exactly the sort of package I am planning to add. "Chrome"
cannot be built from source by anyone except a Google employee.

To clarify: Chrome is a pre-built, officially branded version of the
open-source "Chromium" project. It also includes a few proprietary
components, like a PDF reader plugin from Adobe.

The Chromium project does produce automatic snapshot builds which do
not not include the branding and proprietary software, but these fall
under more open-source friendly license.

Re: [gentoo-dev] License for Google Chrome

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 368 bytes --]

On 8/26/11 9:32 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> To clarify: Chrome is a pre-built, officially branded version of the
> open-source "Chromium" project. It also includes a few proprietary
> components, like a PDF reader plugin from Adobe.

To be precise, the PDF reader in Chrome is not Adobe's, but Google's
own. But the Flash player shipped with Chrome is Adobe's.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] License for Google Chrome

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1111 bytes --]

On 2011.08.26 23:06, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> I have been maintaining an ebuild for Google Chrome in an overlay. It
> basically extracts a deb file to /opt. This serves as an easy
> alternative for people who do not have the patience to compile
> Chromium.
> 
> Now that I have developer access, I would like to move this to the
> tree. Before doing so, I need some advice on how to deal with the
> EULA[1].
> 
> I think clause 2.2 (B) allows me to avoid a fetch restriction.
> 
> I think clause 5.3 prohibits mirroring.
> 
> Do I need to worry about anything else here?
> 
> [1] http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html
> 
> 

Mike,

You will need to add the licence to the tree as its a EULA.
The package will need to be masked by the licence.

If Google provide a click through licence agreement, complying with 
clause 2 is out of our hands. If not, licence masking should ensure 
that users read the licence before they install and subsequently use 
the package. 

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] License for Google Chrome

[Mike Gilbert]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 2011.08.26 23:06, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> I have been maintaining an ebuild for Google Chrome in an overlay. It
>> basically extracts a deb file to /opt. This serves as an easy
>> alternative for people who do not have the patience to compile
>> Chromium.
>>
>> Now that I have developer access, I would like to move this to the
>> tree. Before doing so, I need some advice on how to deal with the
>> EULA[1].
>>
>> I think clause 2.2 (B) allows me to avoid a fetch restriction.
>>
>> I think clause 5.3 prohibits mirroring.
>>
>> Do I need to worry about anything else here?
>>
>> [1] http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html
>>
>>
>
> Mike,
>
> You will need to add the licence to the tree as its a EULA.
> The package will need to be masked by the licence.
>
> If Google provide a click through licence agreement, complying with
> clause 2 is out of our hands. If not, licence masking should ensure
> that users read the licence before they install and subsequently use
> the package.
>

Thanks for the info from everyone. I have added the license to the
tree and EULA group and will add the ebuild with RESTRICT=mirror later
this weekend.