Mixed license problem

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Mixed license problem

Luigi Baldoni
  Hi all,
I'm trying to get a package into Factory but legal says there's a problem
with the embedded proprietary artwork licensing terms. Said material is
indispensable to the program.

Upstream tells me they could relicense it under CC-BY-ND-4.0, with the rest
of the code being GPL-3.0 or LGPL-3.0: were this the case, would Factory
accept it?

Regards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mixed license problem

Jan Engelhardt-4
On Tuesday 2017-08-29 18:37, Luigi Baldoni wrote:

>Upstream tells me they could relicense it under CC-BY-ND-4.0, with the rest
>of the code being GPL-3.0 or LGPL-3.0: were this the case, would Factory
>accept it?

ND is no-derivative, which is, in a sense, against the free spirit to be
able to modify (and then reshare) the work.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mixed license problem

Sebastian-2
In reply to this post by Luigi Baldoni
Hi,

I had a very similar situation with the program hollywood, see
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/utilities/hollywood
The artwork is CC0 and the code is Apache-2.0.

Are other distros shipping this package? If yes, how are they dealing
with it?

Sebastian


On 08/29/2017 06:37 PM, Luigi Baldoni wrote:

>   Hi all,
> I'm trying to get a package into Factory but legal says there's a problem
> with the embedded proprietary artwork licensing terms. Said material is
> indispensable to the program.
>
> Upstream tells me they could relicense it under CC-BY-ND-4.0, with the rest
> of the code being GPL-3.0 or LGPL-3.0: were this the case, would Factory
> accept it?
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://opensuse.14.x6.nabble.com/Mixed-license-problem-tp5094424.html
> Sent from the opensuse-packaging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
python programming - mail server - photo - video - https://sebix.at
cryptographic key at https://sebix.at/DC9B463B.asc and on public keyservers



signature.asc (871 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mixed license problem

Luigi Baldoni
In reply to this post by Jan Engelhardt-4
Jan Engelhardt-4 wrote
On Tuesday 2017-08-29 18:37, Luigi Baldoni wrote:

>Upstream tells me they could relicense it under CC-BY-ND-4.0, with the rest
>of the code being GPL-3.0 or LGPL-3.0: were this the case, would Factory
>accept it?

ND is no-derivative, which is, in a sense, against the free spirit to be
able to modify (and then reshare) the work.
I understand that, but are there hard rules in that regard?

By the way, I'm sure there are other packages (e.g. libreoffice) in which the
official logo could not be altered and redistributes lest it diluted the brand.
Although that's perhaps more of a trademark than a copyright concern...

Regards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mixed license problem

Stephan Kulow-3
In reply to this post by Sebastian-2
Am 29.08.2017 um 18:56 schrieb Sebastian:
> Hi,
>
> I had a very similar situation with the program hollywood, see
> https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/utilities/hollywood
> The artwork is CC0 and the code is Apache-2.0.
>
Sorry, but CC0 is not the same situation as CC-BY-ND. CC0 is basically
public domain while ND is not open source.

Greetings, Stephan

--
Ma muaß weiterkämpfen, kämpfen bis zum Umfalln, a wenn die
ganze Welt an Arsch offen hat, oder grad deswegn.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mixed license problem

Stephan Kulow-3
In reply to this post by Luigi Baldoni
Am 29.08.2017 um 19:16 schrieb Luigi Baldoni:

> Jan Engelhardt-4 wrote
>> On Tuesday 2017-08-29 18:37, Luigi Baldoni wrote:
>>
>>> Upstream tells me they could relicense it under CC-BY-ND-4.0, with the
> rest
>>> of the code being GPL-3.0 or LGPL-3.0: were this the case, would Factory
>>> accept it?
>>
>> ND is no-derivative, which is, in a sense, against the free spirit to be
>> able to modify (and then reshare) the work.
>
> I understand that, but are there hard rules in that regard?
>
Yes, there are rules:
https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines#Code_vs_Content

Greetings, Stephan

--
Ma muaß weiterkämpfen, kämpfen bis zum Umfalln, a wenn die
ganze Welt an Arsch offen hat, oder grad deswegn.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mixed license problem

Luigi Baldoni
Stephan Kulow-3 wrote
> Sorry, but CC0 is not the same situation as CC-BY-ND. CC0 is basically
> public domain while ND is not open source.

I thought ND was nonfree, but not necessarily closed source.


Stephan Kulow-3 wrote
> Am 29.08.2017 um 19:16 schrieb Luigi Baldoni:
>>
>> I understand that, but are there hard rules in that regard?
>>
> Yes, there are rules:
> https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines#Code_vs_Content

I read that and I'm still nowhere near clarity in regard to my original
question.
The content is not religious nor pornographic, just nonfree. Does that
make it "open source compatible"?

Because according to FSF it's compatible with GPL-3.0:
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/cc-by-4-0-and-cc-by-sa-4-0-added-to-our-list-of-free-licenses
.

Regards




--
Sent from: http://opensuse.14.x6.nabble.com/opensuse-packaging-f3359936.html
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mixed license problem

Simon Lees-3
In reply to this post by Sebastian-2


On 30/08/17 02:26, Sebastian wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I had a very similar situation with the program hollywood, see
> https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/utilities/hollywood
> The artwork is CC0 and the code is Apache-2.0.
>
> Are other distros shipping this package? If yes, how are they dealing
> with it?
>
> Sebastian
>
Debian didn't ship Firefox as Firefox for a number of years for a
similar kind of reason (you couldn't modify its logo) but I guess they
had slightly different wording in there licenses as we didn't seem to
have an issue.

>
> On 08/29/2017 06:37 PM, Luigi Baldoni wrote:
>>   Hi all,
>> I'm trying to get a package into Factory but legal says there's a problem
>> with the embedded proprietary artwork licensing terms. Said material is
>> indispensable to the program.
>>
>> Upstream tells me they could relicense it under CC-BY-ND-4.0, with the rest
>> of the code being GPL-3.0 or LGPL-3.0: were this the case, would Factory
>> accept it?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://opensuse.14.x6.nabble.com/Mixed-license-problem-tp5094424.html
>> Sent from the opensuse-packaging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--

Simon Lees (Simotek)                            http://simotek.net

Emergency Update Team                           keybase.io/simotek
SUSE Linux                           Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30
GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B


signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mixed license problem

Jan Engelhardt-4
In reply to this post by Luigi Baldoni

On Wednesday 2017-08-30 08:38, Luigi Baldoni wrote:
>Stephan Kulow-3 wrote
>> Sorry, but CC0 is not the same situation as CC-BY-ND. CC0 is basically
>> public domain while ND is not open source.
>
>I thought ND was nonfree, but not necessarily closed source.
>
>[...]
>Because according to FSF it's compatible with GPL-3.0:
>https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/cc-by-4-0-and-cc-by-sa-4-0-added-to-our-list-of-free-licenses

Pay attention:
CC-BY-4.0 and CC-BY-SA-4.0 has been classified as libre.
CC-BY-ND-4.0, however, has not.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mixed license problem

Sebastian-2
In reply to this post by Stephan Kulow-3
Hi,

On 08/30/2017 07:56 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> not the same situation
I said similar, not same

Sebastian


signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mixed license problem

Luigi Baldoni
In reply to this post by Jan Engelhardt-4
Jan Engelhardt-4 wrote

> On Wednesday 2017-08-30 08:38, Luigi Baldoni wrote:
>>Stephan Kulow-3 wrote
>>> Sorry, but CC0 is not the same situation as CC-BY-ND. CC0 is basically
>>> public domain while ND is not open source.
>>
>>I thought ND was nonfree, but not necessarily closed source.
>>
>>[...]
>>Because according to FSF it's compatible with GPL-3.0:
>>https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/cc-by-4-0-and-cc-by-sa-4-0-added-to-our-list-of-free-licenses
>
> Pay attention:
> CC-BY-4.0 and CC-BY-SA-4.0 has been classified as libre.
> CC-BY-ND-4.0, however, has not.

Right, major brainfart on my part.
Do you think this is final? How can I get in touch with legal to find out
which license would
be acceptable?

Regards




--
Sent from: http://opensuse.14.x6.nabble.com/opensuse-packaging-f3359936.html
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mixed license problem

Stephan Kulow-3
In reply to this post by Luigi Baldoni
On 08/30/2017 08:38 AM, Luigi Baldoni wrote:

> Stephan Kulow-3 wrote
>> Sorry, but CC0 is not the same situation as CC-BY-ND. CC0 is basically
>> public domain while ND is not open source.
>
> I thought ND was nonfree, but not necessarily closed source.
>
>
> Stephan Kulow-3 wrote
>> Am 29.08.2017 um 19:16 schrieb Luigi Baldoni:
>>>
>>> I understand that, but are there hard rules in that regard?
>>>
>> Yes, there are rules:
>> https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines#Code_vs_Content
>
> I read that and I'm still nowhere near clarity in regard to my original
> question.
> The content is not religious nor pornographic, just nonfree. Does that
> make it "open source compatible"?
>
No, it's not. But that doesn't matter as for opensuse packages we differ
between code and content - your artwork is content and as such different
rules apply.

Greetings, Stephan


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]