[gentoo-dev] RFC: License problem

[gentoo-dev] RFC: License problem

[Justin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 875 bytes --]

Hi,

I need some comments on following License Agreement:

http://fizz.cmp.uea.ac.uk/dyndom/dyndomDownload.do

QUOTE

In downloading this code you agree with the following:

I will not redistribute the software to others outside of my immediate
research group. I will suggest to other interested research groups to
contact the authors directly.

I will not alter or suppress the run-time copyright message.

I will acknowledge the program authors on any publication of scientific
results based in part on use of the program and cite the article in
which the program was described.

I will report evidence of program bugs to the author.

I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for use in
other contexts without permission of the author.

/QUOTE

The source file do not contain any further license statements.

Thanks justin


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: License problem

[Kent Fredric]

On 22 March 2012 03:18, Justin <jlec@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need some comments on following License Agreement:
>
> http://fizz.cmp.uea.ac.uk/dyndom/dyndomDownload.do
>
> QUOTE
>
> In downloading this code you agree with the following:
>
> I will not redistribute the software to others outside of my immediate
> research group. I will suggest to other interested research groups to
> contact the authors directly.
>

I'd translate that as "Gentoo can't distribute this, and *definately*
not distribute a copy of this via gentoo's mirrors"


-- 
Kent

perl -e  "print substr( \"edrgmaM  SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3,
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: License problem

[Richard Yao]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 221 bytes --]

On 03/21/12 10:18, Justin wrote:
> I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for use in
> other contexts without permission of the author.

Portage could be considered to be one of these contexts.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: License problem

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 21/03/12 10:34 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 03/21/12 10:18, Justin wrote:
>> I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for
>> use in other contexts without permission of the author.
> 
> Portage could be considered to be one of these contexts.
> 

If the entire package is installed (ie, it's not broken up into
separate libraries or sub-packages) this would be fine (ie having the
package in portage), wouldn't it?

I guess the primary restriction here would be that nothing else would
be allowed to link against any embedded libraries; ie, the package
couldn't be a dep.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAk9p6ksACgkQAJxUfCtlWe0IugEAmsr4z1EunK61OPu6d17hK551
zFI7KaSUPT4EtXnZxboBAIBnPFlybqvfjJ/qj1Xwftf+IR8lzdkkIhWrF9BulNLQ
=wtVz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: License problem

[Richard Yao]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 726 bytes --]

On 03/21/12 10:48, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 21/03/12 10:34 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 03/21/12 10:18, Justin wrote:
>>> I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for
>>> use in other contexts without permission of the author.
> 
>> Portage could be considered to be one of these contexts.
> 
> 
> If the entire package is installed (ie, it's not broken up into
> separate libraries or sub-packages) this would be fine (ie having the
> package in portage), wouldn't it?
> 
> I guess the primary restriction here would be that nothing else would
> be allowed to link against any embedded libraries; ie, the package
> couldn't be a dep.
> 
> 

It could also include applying patches.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: License problem

[Alexandre Rostovtsev]

On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 15:18 +0100, Justin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need some comments on following License Agreement:
>
> http://fizz.cmp.uea.ac.uk/dyndom/dyndomDownload.do
>
> QUOTE
>
> In downloading this code you agree with the following:
>
> I will not redistribute the software to others outside of my immediate
> research group. I will suggest to other interested research groups to
> contact the authors directly.

RESTRICT="bindist fetch"

pkg_nofetch() {
	einfo "Please download ${MY_P}.tar.gz from"
	einfo "http://fizz.cmp.uea.ac.uk/dyndom/dyndomDownload.do"
	einfo "and move it to ${DISTDIR} if you agree with"
	einfo "the DynDom download license agreement."
}

> I will not alter or suppress the run-time copyright message.
>
> I will acknowledge the program authors on any publication of scientific
> results based in part on use of the program and cite the article in
> which the program was described.
>
> I will report evidence of program bugs to the author.

The author should be added to maintainers in metadata.xml so that he
is added to the CC list for any bugs.

> I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for use in
> other contexts without permission of the author.

Avoid distributing patches that show greater-than-fair-use amount of
upstream code.

> /QUOTE
>
> The source file do not contain any further license statements.
>
> Thanks justin
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: License problem

[Justin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 864 bytes --]

On 21.03.2012 15:48, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 21/03/12 10:34 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 03/21/12 10:18, Justin wrote:
>>> I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for
>>> use in other contexts without permission of the author.
> 
>> Portage could be considered to be one of these contexts.
> 
> 
> If the entire package is installed (ie, it's not broken up into
> separate libraries or sub-packages) this would be fine (ie having the
> package in portage), wouldn't it?
> 
> I guess the primary restriction here would be that nothing else would
> be allowed to link against any embedded libraries; ie, the package
> couldn't be a dep.
> 

It simply creates one binary which I am interested in. I don't see any
problem if I use fetch restriction. The only remaining question would be
the actual LICENSE?

justin




[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: License problem

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Richard Yao <ryao@cs.stonybrook.edu> wrote:
> On 03/21/12 10:18, Justin wrote:
>> I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for use in
>> other contexts without permission of the author.
>
> Portage could be considered to be one of these contexts.

Unless portage is just installing a small part of the application then
I don't really see an issue here.  If we keep it as a whole I don't
see the issue.

The first clause really suggests that we need RESTRICT=mirror.  I
don't see any clear need for RESTRICT=fetch.

Obviously the license needs to go into the tree/etc.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: License problem

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Justin schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> I need some comments on following License Agreement:
>
> http://fizz.cmp.uea.ac.uk/dyndom/dyndomDownload.do
>
> QUOTE
>
> In downloading this code you agree with the following:

This would maybe warrant fetch restriction or inclusion of the license
in the EULA group, as agreement to the license is necessary before the
user can even download the package.

> I will not redistribute the software to others outside of my immediate
> research group. I will suggest to other interested research groups to
> contact the authors directly.

RESTRICT="bindist mirror" should shield us from any claims of wrongdoing
here.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: License problem

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 319 bytes --]

On 3/21/12 3:18 PM, Justin wrote:
> http://fizz.cmp.uea.ac.uk/dyndom/dyndomDownload.do

Have you suggested the authors to use a more standard license? A good
article about that (and more) is
<http://starplot.org/articles/physics-software-rant.html>

That could also address possible interpretation questions.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: License problem

[Marc Schiffbauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1210 bytes --]

* Justin schrieb am 21.03.12 um 16:14 Uhr:
> On 21.03.2012 15:48, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > On 21/03/12 10:34 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> On 03/21/12 10:18, Justin wrote:
> >>> I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for
> >>> use in other contexts without permission of the author.
> > 
> >> Portage could be considered to be one of these contexts.
> > 
> > 
> > If the entire package is installed (ie, it's not broken up into
> > separate libraries or sub-packages) this would be fine (ie having the
> > package in portage), wouldn't it?
> > 
> > I guess the primary restriction here would be that nothing else would
> > be allowed to link against any embedded libraries; ie, the package
> > couldn't be a dep.
> > 
> 
> It simply creates one binary which I am interested in. I don't see any
> problem if I use fetch restriction. The only remaining question would be
> the actual LICENSE?

How about asking the authors? Maybe they are fine with mirroring too
if updates they publish will be mirrored too.

If you get the permission to do it, it might be fine.

-Marc
Disclaimer: IANAL

-- 
0x35A64134 - 8AAC 5F46 83B4 DB70 8317  3723 296C 6CCA 35A6 4134

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: License problem

[Richard Yao]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1490 bytes --]

On 03/21/12 11:14, Justin wrote:
> On 21.03.2012 15:48, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 21/03/12 10:34 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
>>> On 03/21/12 10:18, Justin wrote:
>>>> I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for
>>>> use in other contexts without permission of the author.
>>
>>> Portage could be considered to be one of these contexts.
>>
>>
>> If the entire package is installed (ie, it's not broken up into
>> separate libraries or sub-packages) this would be fine (ie having the
>> package in portage), wouldn't it?
>>
>> I guess the primary restriction here would be that nothing else would
>> be allowed to link against any embedded libraries; ie, the package
>> couldn't be a dep.
>>
> 
> It simply creates one binary which I am interested in. I don't see any
> problem if I use fetch restriction. The only remaining question would be
> the actual LICENSE?
> 
> justin
> 
> 
> 

Portage is a dramatic advance over the older model of distributing
tarballs that are then extracted by hand and it is something that the
author could both have failed to realize possible and also consider to
be a different context.

This is a possible ambiguity that I could see being exploited in a legal
setting, although I admit that it is incredibly unlikely that anyone
would to bother. One would have to be incredibly dense to consider
portage to be a separate context, although I could imagine lawyers and
judges considering it to be such.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]