[gentoo-dev] spotify license

[gentoo-dev] spotify license

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1038 bytes --]

It's looking hard to be able to add the spotify ebuild to tree because
of licensing concerns.

http://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/

10:02 <  prometheanfire > do you have a plaintext version? I can copy
the text, but just thought I'd ask :D
10:02 <     dan^spotify > No, and copy+pasting it into a text file isn't
something we really want you to to do, since it changes from time-to-time
10:04 <  prometheanfire > ok, I'll see what the proper course of action
is, I think you have us accept the license on first start right?
10:04 <     dan^spotify > Correct
10:04 <     dan^spotify > Well, first login
10:05 <  prometheanfire > just as good probably
10:05 <     dan^spotify > If you've already accepted the most up-to-date
license on another machine, you won't be prompted again

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373093

They want it to be accepted through the app.  Is there a way this is
compatible with Gentoo?

Any advice would be appreciated.

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] spotify license

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Matthew Thode
<prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> It's looking hard to be able to add the spotify ebuild to tree because
> of licensing concerns.
>
> http://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/

That doesn't really look like a license to me.  It seems to be more
like the terms of use of their service.  I don't really see much
"license" to do anything, but they do point out they'll sue you if you
do something they don't like.

>
> 10:02 <  prometheanfire > do you have a plaintext version? I can copy
> the text, but just thought I'd ask :D
> 10:02 <     dan^spotify > No, and copy+pasting it into a text file isn't
> something we really want you to to do, since it changes from time-to-time

As long as we restrict mirroring, perhaps the license in portage
should just say "Spotify has an end-user license agreement governing
their service and software that they change from time to time.  Please
refer to their website for details.  It is not clear that
redistribution of their software is permissible."

> They want it to be accepted through the app.  Is there a way this is
> compatible with Gentoo?
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.

So, my two cents are that any issues around "license acceptance" to
USE spotify have nothing to do with Gentoo (I'd go a step further and
state that there is no such thing as license "acceptance" in the first
place - licenses are merely statements that you are permitted to do
something under certain conditions and if you don't follow the
conditions then you may or may not be permitted to do something).  I
wouldn't go removing any prompts/etc they put in their software, but
we don't need to go adding them either.  They are free to put
conditions on the use of their service, and communicate them to their
customers.  We don't distribute their software (RESTRICT=mirror), so
we aren't really a party to the matter.

Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: spotify license

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Matthew Thode wrote:

> It's looking hard to be able to add the spotify ebuild to tree because
> of licensing concerns.

> http://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/

This concerns not so much the client software, but their "service" and
the contents provided through it.

> 10:02 <  prometheanfire > do you have a plaintext version? I can copy
> the text, but just thought I'd ask :D
> 10:02 <     dan^spotify > No, and copy+pasting it into a text file isn't
> something we really want you to to do, since it changes from time-to-time
> 10:04 <  prometheanfire > ok, I'll see what the proper course of action
> is, I think you have us accept the license on first start right?
> 10:04 <     dan^spotify > Correct
> 10:04 <     dan^spotify > Well, first login
> 10:05 <  prometheanfire > just as good probably
> 10:05 <     dan^spotify > If you've already accepted the most up-to-date
> license on another machine, you won't be prompted again

> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373093

> They want it to be accepted through the app.  Is there a way this is
> compatible with Gentoo?

We need a plaintext license file for the client that we put in
${PORTDIR}licenses/, so users can look at it before they install the
package.

> Any advice would be appreciated.

Maybe it would make more sense to add one of the free alternatives?

   http://despotify.se/
   https://gitorious.org/libopenspotify

media-sound/despotify is already in Sunrise, bug 307795.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: spotify license

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2122 bytes --]

On 10/29/2012 09:52 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Matthew Thode wrote:
> 
>> It's looking hard to be able to add the spotify ebuild to tree because
>> of licensing concerns.
> 
>> http://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/
> 
> This concerns not so much the client software, but their "service" and
> the contents provided through it.
> 
>> 10:02 <  prometheanfire > do you have a plaintext version? I can copy
>> the text, but just thought I'd ask :D
>> 10:02 <     dan^spotify > No, and copy+pasting it into a text file isn't
>> something we really want you to to do, since it changes from time-to-time
>> 10:04 <  prometheanfire > ok, I'll see what the proper course of action
>> is, I think you have us accept the license on first start right?
>> 10:04 <     dan^spotify > Correct
>> 10:04 <     dan^spotify > Well, first login
>> 10:05 <  prometheanfire > just as good probably
>> 10:05 <     dan^spotify > If you've already accepted the most up-to-date
>> license on another machine, you won't be prompted again
> 
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373093
> 
>> They want it to be accepted through the app.  Is there a way this is
>> compatible with Gentoo?
> 
> We need a plaintext license file for the client that we put in
> ${PORTDIR}licenses/, so users can look at it before they install the
> package.
> 
>> Any advice would be appreciated.
> 
> Maybe it would make more sense to add one of the free alternatives?
> 
>    http://despotify.se/
>    https://gitorious.org/libopenspotify
> 
> media-sound/despotify is already in Sunrise, bug 307795.
> 
> Ulrich
> 
This makes me think that it covers the client as well.  They did say
that if we tried to keep this up to date that would be good enough.

Third party software libraries included in the Spotify Service are
licensed to you either under these Terms, or under the relevant third
party software library’s licence terms as published in the help or
settings section of our desktop and mobile client and on our website.

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: spotify license

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3138 bytes --]

On 10/29/2012 03:32 PM, Matija Šuklje wrote:
> On Ponedeljek 29. of October 2012 15.52.20 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Matthew Thode wrote:
>>> It's looking hard to be able to add the spotify ebuild to tree because
>>> of licensing concerns.
>>>
>>> http://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/
>>
>> This concerns not so much the client software, but their "service" and
>> the contents provided through it.
> 
> Well, the “Spotify Software” is included at least it §4 and also in general 
> included in the “service” term. The license agreement is lacking though.
> 
> In any case Gentoo can’t be the 3rd party here and therefore not redistribute 
> it.
> 
>>> 10:02 <  prometheanfire > do you have a plaintext version? I can copy
>>> the text, but just thought I'd ask :D
>>> 10:02 <     dan^spotify > No, and copy+pasting it into a text file isn't
>>> something we really want you to to do, since it changes from time-to-time
>>> 10:04 <  prometheanfire > ok, I'll see what the proper course of action
>>> is, I think you have us accept the license on first start right?
>>> 10:04 <     dan^spotify > Correct
>>> 10:04 <     dan^spotify > Well, first login
>>> 10:05 <  prometheanfire > just as good probably
>>> 10:05 <     dan^spotify > If you've already accepted the most up-to-date
>>> license on another machine, you won't be prompted again
>>>
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373093
>>>
>>> They want it to be accepted through the app.  Is there a way this is
>>> compatible with Gentoo?
>>
>> We need a plaintext license file for the client that we put in
>> ${PORTDIR}licenses/, so users can look at it before they install the
>> package.
> 
> Yup.
> 
> They probably deem §§ 3 and 4 to be the license, but it’s quite lacking IMHO. 
> So since full copyright is default, this means that we’re not allowed to 
> redistribute it. RESTRICT="mirror" we have to do here.
> 
> As a sub-optimal solution, Rich’s idea to create a Spotify license and point 
> the users to the actual EULA.
> 
> But unless they clarify the software license for their *client*, I’d rather we 
> don’t include it. Too messy.
> 
>> Maybe it would make more sense to add one of the free alternatives?
>>
>>    http://despotify.se/
>>    https://gitorious.org/libopenspotify
>>
>> media-sound/despotify is already in Sunrise, bug 307795.
> 
> Seems a better idea IMHO.
> 
> 
> cheers,
> Matija
> 
> P.S. As Rich mentioned, the difference between a (real) license and “license 
> agreement” is that a license grants you more rights then you get by law and 
> therefore you don’t have to agree to it, since your rights are not diminished; 
> a so called license agreement (EULA, ToS, whatever_agreement) has nothing to 
> do with a (real) license apart from the falsely borrowed name and you have to 
> agree with it, since your statutory rights are diminished/voided.
> 
Ya, I've asked for clarification there, unless we get something more
explicit it stays out of tree.

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: spotify license

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3140 bytes --]

On 10/29/2012 03:32 PM, Matija Šuklje wrote:
> On Ponedeljek 29. of October 2012 15.52.20 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Matthew Thode wrote:
>>> It's looking hard to be able to add the spotify ebuild to tree because
>>> of licensing concerns.
>>>
>>> http://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/
>>
>> This concerns not so much the client software, but their "service" and
>> the contents provided through it.
> 
> Well, the “Spotify Software” is included at least it §4 and also in general 
> included in the “service” term. The license agreement is lacking though.
> 
> In any case Gentoo can’t be the 3rd party here and therefore not redistribute 
> it.
> 
>>> 10:02 <  prometheanfire > do you have a plaintext version? I can copy
>>> the text, but just thought I'd ask :D
>>> 10:02 <     dan^spotify > No, and copy+pasting it into a text file isn't
>>> something we really want you to to do, since it changes from time-to-time
>>> 10:04 <  prometheanfire > ok, I'll see what the proper course of action
>>> is, I think you have us accept the license on first start right?
>>> 10:04 <     dan^spotify > Correct
>>> 10:04 <     dan^spotify > Well, first login
>>> 10:05 <  prometheanfire > just as good probably
>>> 10:05 <     dan^spotify > If you've already accepted the most up-to-date
>>> license on another machine, you won't be prompted again
>>>
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373093
>>>
>>> They want it to be accepted through the app.  Is there a way this is
>>> compatible with Gentoo?
>>
>> We need a plaintext license file for the client that we put in
>> ${PORTDIR}licenses/, so users can look at it before they install the
>> package.
> 
> Yup.
> 
> They probably deem §§ 3 and 4 to be the license, but it’s quite lacking IMHO. 
> So since full copyright is default, this means that we’re not allowed to 
> redistribute it. RESTRICT="mirror" we have to do here.
> 
> As a sub-optimal solution, Rich’s idea to create a Spotify license and point 
> the users to the actual EULA.
> 
> But unless they clarify the software license for their *client*, I’d rather we 
> don’t include it. Too messy.
> 
>> Maybe it would make more sense to add one of the free alternatives?
>>
>>    http://despotify.se/
>>    https://gitorious.org/libopenspotify
>>
>> media-sound/despotify is already in Sunrise, bug 307795.
> 
> Seems a better idea IMHO.
> 
> 
> cheers,
> Matija
> 
> P.S. As Rich mentioned, the difference between a (real) license and “license 
> agreement” is that a license grants you more rights then you get by law and 
> therefore you don’t have to agree to it, since your rights are not diminished; 
> a so called license agreement (EULA, ToS, whatever_agreement) has nothing to 
> do with a (real) license apart from the falsely borrowed name and you have to 
> agree with it, since your statutory rights are diminished/voided.
> 

Got confirmation via irc that the license is for the client as well,
dunno if that's good enough...

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] spotify license

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1297 bytes --]

On 10/29/2012 09:17 AM, Matthew Thode wrote:
> It's looking hard to be able to add the spotify ebuild to tree because
> of licensing concerns.
> 
> http://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/
> 
> 10:02 <  prometheanfire > do you have a plaintext version? I can copy
> the text, but just thought I'd ask :D
> 10:02 <     dan^spotify > No, and copy+pasting it into a text file isn't
> something we really want you to to do, since it changes from time-to-time
> 10:04 <  prometheanfire > ok, I'll see what the proper course of action
> is, I think you have us accept the license on first start right?
> 10:04 <     dan^spotify > Correct
> 10:04 <     dan^spotify > Well, first login
> 10:05 <  prometheanfire > just as good probably
> 10:05 <     dan^spotify > If you've already accepted the most up-to-date
> license on another machine, you won't be prompted again
> 
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373093
> 
> They want it to be accepted through the app.  Is there a way this is
> compatible with Gentoo?
> 
> Any advice would be appreciated.
> 

One option that's been presented to me is to add restrict mirror (I
don't think restricting fetch is needed, but meh what do I know).  That
sound acceptable?

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] spotify license

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> One option that's been presented to me is to add restrict mirror (I
> don't think restricting fetch is needed, but meh what do I know).  That
> sound acceptable?

The last time I looked at the ebuild that was already done.  We have
no other choice unless there is a clear statement that free(TM)
redistribution is permissible, and I don't see that in the
"agreement."

As to what the license is, I'd probably just point people to it and
tell them they're on their own.  We wash our hands and have no part of
it - hence no mirroring.  Gentoo is not bound by agreements we are not
a party to.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] spotify license

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 914 bytes --]

On 11/06/2012 12:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> One option that's been presented to me is to add restrict mirror (I
>> don't think restricting fetch is needed, but meh what do I know).  That
>> sound acceptable?
> 
> The last time I looked at the ebuild that was already done.  We have
> no other choice unless there is a clear statement that free(TM)
> redistribution is permissible, and I don't see that in the
> "agreement."
> 
> As to what the license is, I'd probably just point people to it and
> tell them they're on their own.  We wash our hands and have no part of
> it - hence no mirroring.  Gentoo is not bound by agreements we are not
> a party to.
> 
> Rich
> 
So you think we need to restrict fetch so we can let the user know about
the licensing thing?

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] spotify license

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> So you think we need to restrict fetch so we can let the user know about
> the licensing thing?

No.  If a user wants Gentoo to help them stay on top of their licenses
there is already a mechanism for this - ACCEPT_LICENSE.  The spotify
"license" in the tree would just contain a disclaimer and link like
the one I proposed earlier, and it would not be part of the free
license groups, etc.  Besides, anybody using the spotify service will
no doubt be exposed to the agreement as part of signing up for it.

I would not look to strip any click-throughs upstream puts in their
application, but neither would I make users jump through hoops.  Fetch
restriction generally should be used for packages that do not have
stable URIs, which we also cannot mirror.

Rich