[gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

[gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

[Jim Ramsay]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1382 bytes --]

IANAL, and I'm sure most of us aren't either, but I would appreciate
some opinions on Bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/234542 and whether the
binary patch proposed there conflicts with section 2.5.1 of the license
agreement from Adobe:

http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/pdfs/Reader_Player_WWEULA-Combined-20060724_1430.pdf

Specifically, here is the passage I'm wondering about:

2.5.1  You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works
based upon the Software. You may not reverse engineer, decompile,
disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the
Software except to the extent you may be expressly permitted to
decompile under applicable law, it is essential to do so in order to
achieve operability of the Software with another software program, and
you have first requested Adobe to provide the information necessary to
achieve such operability and Adobe has not made such information
available.

I *think* I would be okay using this binary patch since:

1) This is specifically to make it operable with libcurl.so.4
2) I have (and others have) asked Adobe to recompile it with support
for libcurl.so.4 instead of libcurl.so.3, but they have not done so (or
responded to any of these requests, as far as I am aware).

Anyone care to weigh in, lawyer or not?

-- 
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

[Robert Bridge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 640 bytes --]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:10:18 -0400
Jim Ramsay <lack@gentoo.org> wrote:

IANAL, but the following line is critical:

> it is essential to do so in order to
> achieve operability of the Software with another software program, and
> you have first requested Adobe to provide the information necessary to
> achieve such operability and Adobe has not made such information
> available.

Given the situation as you outline it, I think the sub-section above
expressly permits the binary patch.

The request has been made, Adobe have not co-operated, that clause has
been invoked...

At least, that's how I would read it.

Rob.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

[Richard Freeman]

Jim Ramsay wrote:
> 2.5.1  You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works
> based upon the Software. You may not reverse engineer, decompile,
> disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the
> Software...
> 
> Anyone care to weigh in, lawyer or not?
> 

Obviously I'm not a lawyer but I don't see an issue here.  I don't see 
that Gentoo or its developers are in any way a party to this agreement. 
  This is an agreement between Adobe and those who distribute its 
software.  Some argue that EULAs also apply to those who use software 
(which is debatable), but Gentoo does not use this software either (to 
my knowledge).

Gentoo distributes ebuilds - which are not the property of Adobe and are 
not derivative works of any of Adobe's software.  A user who executes an 
ebuild might obtain a copy of an Adobe product that Adobe distributes. 
A user who executes an ebuild might create a derivative work of an Adobe 
product, and users who use proprietary software are advised to consult 
with lawyers as appropriate if they are concerned about the terms of 
license agreements that they may or may not be parties to.

To me this is kind of like RiffTrax or similar along-side products that 
allow users to improve the experience of using a copyrighted work, but 
which are not themselves derivatives of copyrighted works.  If a user 
using one of these products happens to create a derivative work that is 
a matter between them and the copyright owner.  If such work is 
occurring without further distribution in an end-user context it is 
likely to be considered fair use.

Gentoo doesn't distribute software (well, except to the degree that we 
mirror it).  Gentoo makes it easier for users to use software that 
others distribute.  As a result, Gentoo stays fairly clear of copyright 
law, and we do make a good-faith effort to not mirror content which we 
are not licensed to redistribute.

That is my personal take on things like this, but again, I'm not a 
lawyer and others might not agree (makes no difference to me one way or 
another if you don't).  :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

[Richard Freeman]

Jim Ramsay wrote:
> 2.5.1  You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works
> based upon the Software. You may not reverse engineer, decompile,
> disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the
> Software...
> 
> Anyone care to weigh in, lawyer or not?
> 

Obviously I'm not a lawyer but I don't see an issue here.  I don't see 
that Gentoo or its developers are in any way a party to this agreement. 
  This is an agreement between Adobe and those who distribute its 
software.  Some argue that EULAs also apply to those who use software 
(which is debatable), but Gentoo does not use this software either (to 
my knowledge).

Gentoo distributes ebuilds - which are not the property of Adobe and are 
not derivative works of any of Adobe's software.  A user who executes an 
ebuild might obtain a copy of an Adobe product that Adobe distributes. 
A user who executes an ebuild might create a derivative work of an Adobe 
product, and users who use proprietary software are advised to consult 
with lawyers as appropriate if they are concerned about the terms of 
license agreements that they may or may not be parties to.

To me this is kind of like RiffTrax or similar along-side products that 
allow users to improve the experience of using a copyrighted work, but 
which are not themselves derivatives of copyrighted works.  If a user 
using one of these products happens to create a derivative work that is 
a matter between them and the copyright owner.  If such work is 
occurring without further distribution in an end-user context it is 
likely to be considered fair use.

Gentoo doesn't distribute software (well, except to the degree that we 
mirror it).  Gentoo makes it easier for users to use software that 
others distribute.  As a result, Gentoo stays fairly clear of copyright 
law, and we do make a good-faith effort to not mirror content which we 
are not licensed to redistribute.

That is my personal take on things like this, but again, I'm not a 
lawyer and others might not agree (makes no difference to me one way or 
another if you don't).  :)

[gentoo-dev] Re: License Interpretation

[Duncan]

Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> posted 48ACBFBC.4070902@gentoo.org,
excerpted below, on  Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:07:08 -0400:

> Gentoo doesn't distribute software (well, except to the degree that we
> mirror it).

It probably doesn't apply in this particular case, but note that Gentoo 
DOES distribute software in binary form on the LiveCDs, and prepackaged 
on the package-CDs as well.  

That definitely applies to GPLed works, for instance, and there's a 
discussion in the archive where it was pointed out that at the time, 
Gentoo wasn't in compliance, because we weren't ensuring our sources were 
available for three years, thus missing on the offer-to-provide,
good-for-three-years, clause, AND we weren't always satisfying the
make-sources-available-at-the-time-of-distribution alternative clause 
either.  (In that, at the time, for conference distribution and the like, 
we often made available LiveCDs, without corresponding directly available 
at the time of distribution, copies of the sources used to create them, 
not just patches, but the complete sources.)

This came up because it had been applied to Knoppix and etc and had 
forced them to change their ways, and Gentoo was interested in correcting 
the problem before it likewise became a legal one for us.  Again, note 
that the license specifies all sources and scripts necessary to build, 
etc, NOT just distribution applied patches, which is what many were doing 
and what was catching them off guard.  There was also some discussion of 
removing some of the outdated LiveCDs etc from distribution, so the three-
year-clock could start ticking, since until distribution has ceased it is 
being continuously reset.

Presumably that has been corrected now, and releng is properly archiving 
all sources used in the creation of the LiveCDs, etc, for three years 
after they've ceased distribution.  The alternative, as mentioned, would 
be to ensure that sources are always made available at the time of 
distribution, including at conferences and the like.  In either case, 
presumably we've stopped distributing historic LiveCDs and etc for which 
this was not done, so at least the 3-year clock is ticking, even if we 
can't easily go back and get the required sources should anyone call us 
on the 3-year thing before it expires.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1169 bytes --]

On 21:07 Wed 20 Aug     , Richard Freeman wrote:
> Gentoo distributes ebuilds - which are not the property of Adobe and are  
> not derivative works of any of Adobe's software.  A user who executes an  
> ebuild might obtain a copy of an Adobe product that Adobe distributes. A 
> user who executes an ebuild might create a derivative work of an Adobe  
> product, and users who use proprietary software are advised to consult  
> with lawyers as appropriate if they are concerned about the terms of  
> license agreements that they may or may not be parties to.

Have you heard of the term "contributory infringement"? It means you're 
helping someone else break copyright law.

The recent JMRI decision showed that at least free-software licenses are 
copyright licenses rather than contracts, and there's reasonable support 
that other types of licenses are the same. That means if we're enabling 
& encouraging our users to infringe copyrights or patents by providing 
ebuilds that do so, we may be guilty of the same.

IANAL and all that.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

[Richard Freeman]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 
> Have you heard of the term "contributory infringement"? It means you're 
> helping someone else break copyright law.

Wouldn't somebody need to distribute the software to be in violation of 
copyright law?

If I in legal and fully-licensed manner install a program on my PC, and 
then I modify that program but don't distribute it, have I violated 
copyright law?  If the end-user doesn't violate copyright, then Gentoo 
couldn't be guilty of contributory infringement.

If I purchase a piece of artwork and then draw over it I haven't 
violated copyright.  If I make 10 copies of the resulting modified art 
and distribute them then I may have.  If I sell a magic marker and print 
on the box "you can draw all over your expensive artwork" on it I'm not 
contributing to copyright infringement.  If I write on the box "you can 
draw all over your expensive artwork and sell it on ebay" then I may be 
contributing to copyright infringement.

At least, that is how I see it...  :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

[Sven Vermeulen]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Jim Ramsay <lack@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 2.5.1  You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works
> based upon the Software. You may not reverse engineer, decompile,
> disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the
> Software except to the extent you may be expressly permitted to
> decompile under applicable law, it is essential to do so in order to
> achieve operability of the Software with another software program, and
> you have first requested Adobe to provide the information necessary to
> achieve such operability and Adobe has not made such information
> available.
>
> I *think* I would be okay using this binary patch since:
>
> 1) This is specifically to make it operable with libcurl.so.4
> 2) I have (and others have) asked Adobe to recompile it with support
> for libcurl.so.4 instead of libcurl.so.3, but they have not done so (or
> responded to any of these requests, as far as I am aware).

Actually (and I'm no lawyer either), I think a binary patch isn't allowed:

> You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works
> based upon the Software.

The rest of the paragraph is about obtaining (or trying to obtain) its
source code or application behavior, i.e. learn the program, not
modify it.

Wkr,
  Sven Vermeulen

Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

[Jim Ramsay]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 268 bytes --]

Good news everyone!

This has become a non-issue, at least in the next version of flash
player[1].

Thanks again for all your input!

[1] http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2008/08/curl_tradeoffs.html

-- 
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]