On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 12:00 +0000, legal-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Send legal mailing list submissions to > legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > legal-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > You can reach the person managing the list at > legal-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of legal digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Frontier Artistic License (Steve Grubb) > 2. Re: Frontier Artistic License (Richard Fontana) > 3. Re: Frontier Artistic License (Steve Grubb) > 4. Re: Frontier Artistic License (Richard Fontana) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:28:39 -0500 > From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Frontier Artistic License > To: legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Message-ID: <201002031128.39713.sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hello, > > We were doing a license review of the aide package and found that its shipping > a file that is released under the Frontier Artistic License: > > http://www.spinwardstars.com/frontier/fal.html > > Is this license acceptable to Fedora? (I couldn't find mention of it on the > Licensing wiki page.) Aide is a GPLv2+ application in case you need to know > that as well. > > Thanks, > -Steve > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:44:51 -0500 > From: Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Frontier Artistic License > To: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Message-ID: <20100203164451.GA9107@xxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 11:28:39AM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote: > > Hello, > > > > We were doing a license review of the aide package and found that its shipping > > a file that is released under the Frontier Artistic License: > > > > http://www.spinwardstars.com/frontier/fal.html > > > > Is this license acceptable to Fedora? (I couldn't find mention of it on the > > Licensing wiki page.) > > No, I discussed this with Spot in a different context a year ago, and > the conclusion was that the Frontier Artistic License was not > acceptable for Fedora, given the non-acceptability of the Artistic > License 1.0. > > - RF > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:53:44 -0500 > From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Frontier Artistic License > To: Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Message-ID: <201002031353.44953.sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On Wednesday 03 February 2010 11:44:51 am Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 11:28:39AM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > We were doing a license review of the aide package and found that its > > > shipping a file that is released under the Frontier Artistic License: > > > > > > http://www.spinwardstars.com/frontier/fal.html > > > > > > Is this license acceptable to Fedora? (I couldn't find mention of it on > > > the Licensing wiki page.) > > > > No, I discussed this with Spot in a different context a year ago, and > > the conclusion was that the Frontier Artistic License was not > > acceptable for Fedora, given the non-acceptability of the Artistic > > License 1.0. > > OK, all linux distributions are shipping this package. I found that Debian had > discussed this too and they accepted it. So, if we object to it, then I need > to do some work upstream to fix this. What should I tell them is the basis for > us not allowing it when other accept it? I'm not opposed to your > recommendation, I just want to be able to state out position, that's all. > > Thanks, > -Steve > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:31:32 -0500 > From: Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Frontier Artistic License > To: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Message-ID: <20100203223132.GB9973@xxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 01:53:44PM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote: > > On Wednesday 03 February 2010 11:44:51 am Richard Fontana wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 11:28:39AM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > We were doing a license review of the aide package and found that its > > > > shipping a file that is released under the Frontier Artistic License: > > > > > > > > http://www.spinwardstars.com/frontier/fal.html > > > > > > > > Is this license acceptable to Fedora? (I couldn't find mention of it on > > > > the Licensing wiki page.) > > > > > > No, I discussed this with Spot in a different context a year ago, and > > > the conclusion was that the Frontier Artistic License was not > > > acceptable for Fedora, given the non-acceptability of the Artistic > > > License 1.0. > > > > OK, all linux distributions are shipping this package. I found that Debian had > > discussed this too and they accepted it. So, if we object to it, then I need > > to do some work upstream to fix this. What should I tell them is the basis for > > us not allowing it when other accept it? I'm not opposed to your > > recommendation, I just want to be able to state out position, that's all. > > Sure, in Spot's temporary absence I will give it a try. > > Fedora's general policy, ignoring certain special cases, is to > distribute software only under free software licenses. In determining > what is "free", Fedora seeks to apply the FSF's Free Software > Definition and looks to documented FSF policy (where it exists) as the > main source of persuasive external authority. Decisions by other > distros that rigorously adopt a similar policy (particularly Debian), > as well as license approvals/disapprovals by the OSI, are viewed with > respect and may be helpful, but are not treated as similarly > authoritative.[1] Fedora is especially reluctant to adopt a specific > position on a license's freeness/non-freeness that differs from that > of the FSF.[2] > > The Free Software Foundation has, for well over ten years I believe, > publicly classified the Artistic License 1.0 as non-free.[3] We > believe that there is a sound basis for the FSF's opinion; among other > things it stands for the important general principle that, at some > point, licenses may be too vague or confusing to be considered free, a > principle we have applied in reviewing other licenses. This view > applies equally to the Frontier Artistic License, which is based > closely on the Artistic License 1.0 and contains most if not all of > the features that originally troubled the FSF. Fedora has, as I > understand it, acted on this policy by pulling Artistic 1.0-licensed > Perl packages not dual-licensed under the GPL or available under > Artistic 2.0. > > [1] Indeed, several OSI-approved licenses are on the Fedora "bad > license" list, while at least one OSI-disapproved license has been > approved for Fedora. > > [2] I am aware of one case where the FSF judged a license to be free > after (in the absence of guidance from the FSF) we decided it was > nonfree; we have not altered our decision, but the issue is moot > because the licensor revised the license to cure the deficiency. > > [3] If my understanding of the history is correct, the acceptability > of the Artistic License 1.0 was grandfathered into the Debian Free > Software Guidelines and implicitly into the Open Source Definition, > despite known concerns about the license. > > - Richard > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > legal mailing list > legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal > > End of legal Digest, Vol 32, Issue 1 > ************************************ > sounds like what spot would have said to me. _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal