On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 08:47:41PM +0300, Alexey Lunev wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 20:19:00 +0300, Daniel P. Berrangé via legal wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 11:57:35AM -0500, Richard Fontana via legal wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 9:32 AM Alexey Lunev via legal > > > > > > <legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi everyone! > > > > > > > > I want to bring `zmusic` into Fedora, but there is some issues with > > > > licensing. ZMusic uses DUMB library, which has unusual DUMB-0.9.3 > > > > license[0], but it is basically zlib license with extra clauses which > > > > can restrict it to count as free and accepted license. > > > > > > > > Fedora already has `dumb ` package, it patches[1] license to make it > > > > equivalent to zlib, with permission from original authors[2]. It was 18 > > > > years ago. I cannot use this package, because DUMB library, which is > > > > bundled with ZMusic, is heavily modified[3]. > > > > > > > > Is it OK to do the same, or do i need to ask permission from authors > > > > again? > > > > > > > > [0]: https://github.com/kode54/dumb/blob/master/LICENSE > > > > [1]: > > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dumb/blob/rawhide/f/dumb-0.9.3-licen > > > > se-clarification.patch [2]: > > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dumb/blob/rawhide/f/license-clarific > > > > ation.eml [3]: > > > > https://github.com/ZDoom/ZMusic/blob/master/licenses/legal.txt#L15-L19> > > > I think you're asking whether you can simply take the 2007 > > > clarification and apply it to the forked version of DUMB in ZMusic. My > > > view is no, in part because I am not sure why the way Hans de Goede > > > dealt with this in 2007 was considered sufficient. He got permission > > > from one of the authors of the library; I'm sure that was the main or > > > original author of the project and/or the maintainer at the time, but > > > I am not understanding the basis for the implied view that they could > > > speak for all the authors of the project. (Perhaps you have more > > > information on the history of that project and can provide that > > > explanation.) > > > > Since the clarification in the original Fedora package, upstream modified > > their license again, adding a clause 8, that declares clauses 4, 5, 6 to > > be "null & void": > > > > > > https://github.com/kode54/dumb/commit/7a0d05c002c7ced72ceba489fc603b10b6d72 > > d2b > > > > This is the version shown at that link [0] above. I think this added > > clause 8 makes the license equivalent to zlib license once more (in > > an incredibly silly & roundabout way), and thus ought to be considered > > acceptable ? > > > > IOW *if* the Fedora package were updated to the newest upstream > > release, the license clarification patch / email shouldn't be > > needed any more. > > > > Having said that, this all assumes upstream actually had a legal basis > > for adding clause 8 to their license though - given their lack of > > seriousness with writing the license, I guess I'm sceptical existing > > contributors were asked for permission when clause 8 was added. > > > > > So, without more information, I think you need to ask permission from > > > *all* the authors of DUMB who appear to have applied this particular > > > license, not just the one person Hans de Goede contacted. > > > > It wouldn't be just the oroginal DUMB authors who would need to grant > > permission. > > > > ZMusic states that their bundled copy of DUMB is "heavily modified". > > > > Those modifications would be implicitly under the "DUMB license" too. > > > > IOW, as well as all the orignal DUMB authors, permision would be needed > > from all the ZMusic authors who were responsible for making modifications > > to their fork of DUMB after it was imported. > > Sorry, I'm a bit confused at this point, first part of message says about > nullification of silly clauses, but second says about permissions from > contributors. This only refers to the original DUMB package code from the date of the commit that added the extra clause: https://github.com/kode54/dumb/commit/7a0d05c002c7ced72ceba489fc603b10b6d72d2b I'm saying that the "plain" DUMB package in Fedora could rebase and thus avoid the license questionmarks Richard raised about the original exception patch / email message added in Fedora. > Can I use DUMB license as zlib (package ZMusic as-is), or do I need to ask > every contributor for permission? ZMusic is using an older fork of the DUMB code which does NOT have the extra clauses in its license. The changed upstream license does NOT auto apply to forks that have accumulated extra changes as is the case of ZMusic. ZMusic would have to throw out its fork & pick up the new upstream code to benefit from the changed license. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
