On 03/02/12 12:00, 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. ii package license (Petr Šabata) > 2. Re: ii package license (Josh Boyer) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:04:57 +0100 > From: Petr Šabata <contyk@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: ii package license > Message-ID: <20120203090457.GA27116@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear list, > > I'm packaging the ii IRC client [1] for Fedora and the > package reviewer has expressed concerns about its license. > This software includes, in addition to the main MIT-licensed > code, the following script: > > http://hg.suckless.org/ii/file/d163c8917af7/query.sh > > I've decided to use "MIT and Public domain" as the package > license. Would that be correct? > > Thanks in advance, > Petr > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784589 > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 230 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20120203/fcfe5bc4/attachment-0001.sig> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 06:57:40 -0500 > From: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> > To: legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, volker27@xxxxxx > Subject: Re: ii package license > Message-ID: > <CA+5PVA5+hcDZmOZ5DvL3wkNzs+9pj_hpPYU9jwoJjP2aDoXh3w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Petr Šabata <contyk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Dear list, >> >> I'm packaging the ii IRC client [1] for Fedora and the >> package reviewer has expressed concerns about its license. >> This software includes, in addition to the main MIT-licensed >> code, the following script: >> >> http://hg.suckless.org/ii/file/d163c8917af7/query.sh >> >> I've decided to use "MIT and Public domain" as the package >> license. Would that be correct? > > I don't think Public Domain is correct. That normally needs to be > expressly specified and the author clearly isn't doing that. > > It's similar to WTFPL, but not enough to be called that. Spot is > at FOSDEM, so this will probably need to wait until he looks it > over. If it were me, I'd ask upstream to relicense it to something > a bit more standard in any case. > > josh > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > legal mailing list > legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal > > End of legal Digest, Vol 56, Issue 3 > ************************************ Petr and Josh, Spot made the following change in the guidelines. ***** Works which are clearly marked as being in the Public Domain, and for which no evidence is known to contradict this statement, are treated in Fedora as being in the Public Domain, on the grounds that the intentions of the original creator are reflected by such a use, even if due to regional issues, it may not have been possible for the original creator to fully abandon all of their their copyrights on the work and place it fully into the Public Domain. If you believe that a work in Fedora which is marked as being in the Public Domain is actually available under a copyright license, please inform us of this fact with details, and we will immediately investigate the claim. ***** #!/bin/sh 2 # ---------------------------------------------------- 3 # Nico Golde <nico@xxxxxxxxx> 4 # License: do whatever you want with this code 5 # Purpose: locate new queries for the ii irc client 6 # ---------------------------------------------------- I interpret the above statement just as such. Technically, I assume you could even re-license it on the original copyright holders behalf, as the copyright holder invites you to do with it as you please. Of course, Spot is the one who strangles the legal folks in his spare time. So, he should be able to choke out a more elaborate answer, as there is probably some US legal sillyness, which prevents people from using common sense. I should add further, the above mentioned changes in the guidelines were made with the approval of the board and the legal geniuses. Regards, Tristan -- Tristan Santore BSc MBCS TS4523-RIPE Network and Infrastructure Operations InterNexusConnect Mobile +44-78-55069812 Tristan.Santore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Former Thawte Notary (Please note: Thawte has closed its WoT programme down, and I am therefore no longer able to accredit trust) For Fedora related issues, please email me at: TSantore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
