[gentoo-dev] package with funny licence

[gentoo-dev] package with funny licence

[Ulrich Mueller]

Today I stumbled over a package that has the following funny "licence"
in its file headers:

;; Bozoup(P) 1995 The Bozo(tic) Softwar(e) Founda(t)ion, Inc.
;; See the BOZO Antipasto for further information.
;; If this is useful to you, may you forever be blessed by the Holy Lord
;; Patty.  AT&T you will.

The package was marked as GPL-2 but I think this does not really hit
the spot. ;-)

Should I add the "BOZO Antipasto" [1] as a new licence, or is
LICENSE="as-is" sufficient here? [2]

Ulrich

[1] <http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/BOZO>
[2] Yes, this is a serious question.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] package with funny licence

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 12:21:12 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Today I stumbled over a package that has the following funny "licence"
> in its file headers:
> 
> ;; Bozoup(P) 1995 The Bozo(tic) Softwar(e) Founda(t)ion, Inc.
> ;; See the BOZO Antipasto for further information.
> ;; If this is useful to you, may you forever be blessed by the Holy
> Lord ;; Patty.  AT&T you will.

That's not a license, it's a copyright notice with added fluff.

> The package was marked as GPL-2 but I think this does not really hit
> the spot. ;-)

If I were you, I would ask the author and not simply label it as-is.
GPL-2 it definitely isn't.


Kind regards,
     JeR
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] package with funny licence

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 03:01:52 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 12:21:12 +0200
>
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Today I stumbled over a package that has the following funny "licence"
> > in its file headers:
> >
> > ;; Bozoup(P) 1995 The Bozo(tic) Softwar(e) Founda(t)ion, Inc.
> > ;; See the BOZO Antipasto for further information.
> > ;; If this is useful to you, may you forever be blessed by the Holy
> > Lord ;; Patty.  AT&T you will.
>
> That's not a license, it's a copyright notice with added fluff.
>
> > The package was marked as GPL-2 but I think this does not really hit
> > the spot. ;-)
>
> If I were you, I would ask the author and not simply label it as-is.
> GPL-2 it definitely isn't.

The whole license is especially completely unintelligeable. Is one actually 
allowed to distribute/modify/use the software at all? It is probably best to 
dump the package.

Paul
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: package with funny licence

[Steve Long]

Paul de Vrieze wrote:
>> > ;; Bozoup(P) 1995 The Bozo(tic) Softwar(e) Founda(t)ion, Inc.
>> > ;; See the BOZO Antipasto for further information.
>> > ;; If this is useful to you, may you forever be blessed by the Holy
>> > Lord ;; Patty.  AT&T you will.
>>
>> That's not a license, it's a copyright notice with added fluff.
>>
>> > The package was marked as GPL-2 but I think this does not really hit
>> > the spot. ;-)
>>
>> If I were you, I would ask the author and not simply label it as-is.
>> GPL-2 it definitely isn't.
> 
> The whole license is especially completely unintelligeable. Is one
> actually allowed to distribute/modify/use the software at all? It is
> probably best to dump the package.
> 
It doesn't seem like a license to me at all, since it has nothing but
declaratory statements. It maybe be Published by some group, but they seem
to make no restrictions whatsoever. As such, I'd personally feel quite
happy using it as-is; I don't think they much care either way :-)

May G bless you all..


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: package with funny licence

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:28:04 +0100
Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

> It maybe be Published by some group, but they seem to make no
> restrictions whatsoever. As such, I'd personally feel quite happy
> using it as-is; I don't think they much care either way :-)

Hmmm. A license is *needed* as long as modifying/distributing the
package is restricted by copyright. The as-is license specifically
grants you the right to use the software it pertains to. Without an
explicit license, you may not (ever) modify or distribute it. You would
need to obtain permission from the copyright owner in that case -
otherwise the normal copyright restrictions are in effect.

Again, to ask the copyright owner for a simple (written) statement
saying how the software may be (freely or not) distributed and modified
is currently the next step.


Kind regards,
     JeR
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: package with funny licence

[Steve Long]

Jeroen Roovers wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:28:04 +0100
> Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> It maybe be Published by some group, but they seem to make no
>> restrictions whatsoever. As such, I'd personally feel quite happy
>> using it as-is; I don't think they much care either way :-)
> 
> Hmmm. A license is *needed* as long as modifying/distributing the
> package is restricted by copyright. The as-is license specifically
> grants you the right to use the software it pertains to. Without an
> explicit license, you may not (ever) modify or distribute it. You would
> need to obtain permission from the copyright owner in that case -
> otherwise the normal copyright restrictions are in effect.
>
Sure but afaict they disavow all restrictions. In response (aiui) to the
standard question "What may we do with this?" the first line reads:
"You're allowed. You're a bozo."

"The BOZO Manifesto" takes up the rest of the document, wherein
"The Bozotic Software Foundation (hereafter referred to as "us" or
"you" or "everyone except Emacs-19")" imo stipulates that in effect the
users are part of the group holding publishing rights, or rather that the
code is public domain ("everyone except Emacs-19".)

> Again, to ask the copyright owner for a simple (written) statement
> saying how the software may be (freely or not) distributed and modified
> is currently the next step.
> 
Agreed; I'm sure I've seen that ben@gnu addy on other software if manson is
non-responsive. An email counts as written ofc, although a gpg sig might be
advisable. (Although I do not think this particular case merits such
caution.. but then, I'm a bozo ;)


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] package with funny licence

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:02:31 +1000
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:

> The whole license is especially completely unintelligeable. Is one
> actually allowed to distribute/modify/use the software at all? It is
> probably best to dump the package.

1) Again, it's not a license. It's a copyright notice with a couple
of jokes attached. It contains no statement granting anyone anything
with regard to the copyright of the materials it is attached to. Ask
your lawyer.

2) Ulrich didn't mention a category/package or that said package is
in the tree already, so there probably isn't anything to "dump" at this
stage.

3) Why go overboard and be all negative like that (as to suggest dumping
the package)? Asking the copyright owner of the package is probably the
best thing to do even if you do not intend to distribute the
copyrighted materials and just want to know where you legally stand,
*regardless* of whether the package is in the tree or not.


Kind regards,
     JeR
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] package with funny licence

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Jeroen Roovers wrote:

> 1) Again, it's not a license. It's a copyright notice with a couple
> of jokes attached. It contains no statement granting anyone anything
> with regard to the copyright of the materials it is attached to. Ask
> your lawyer.

Is it even a copyright notice? It doesn't contain the word
"copyright".

> 2) Ulrich didn't mention a category/package or that said package is
> in the tree already, so there probably isn't anything to "dump" at
> this stage.

It is in the tree since 2002.

> 3) Why go overboard and be all negative like that (as to suggest
> dumping the package)? Asking the copyright owner of the package
> is probably the best thing to do even if you do not intend to
> distribute the copyrighted materials and just want to know where you
> legally stand, *regardless* of whether the package is in the tree or
> not.

Meanwhile, I've discovered the following notice on upstream's WWW page
<http://www.splode.com/~friedman/software/>:

   Unless indicated otherwise (and I don't think there are actually any
   exceptions), everything here is either public domain or distributed
   under the terms of the GNU General Public License.

So since it isn't GPL, one could conclude that it is in the public
domain. However, I have send an e-mail asking for clarification.

Ulrich
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-emacs/uboat (was: Re: package with funny licence)

[Ulrich Mueller]

# Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> (16 Jan 2008)
# Unclear licence. Masked for removal in 30 days.
app-emacs/uboat


See also my message from 3 Jul 2007:

> Today I stumbled over a package that has the following funny "licence"
> in its file headers:

> ;; Bozoup(P) 1995 The Bozo(tic) Softwar(e) Founda(t)ion, Inc.
> ;; See the BOZO Antipasto for further information.
> ;; If this is useful to you, may you forever be blessed by the Holy Lord
> ;; Patty.  AT&T you will.

As suggested on -dev, I've asked upstream for clarification in
July 2007 and sent a reminder in December, but haven't received any
definite answer.

Ulrich
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: app-emacs/uboat

[Ulrich Mueller]

I wrote:

> # Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> (16 Jan 2008)
> # Unclear licence. Masked for removal in 30 days.
> app-emacs/uboat

Unmasked again, since both authors have confirmed that the software
is in the public domain.

Ulrich
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list