permission to use spec files in other projects

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 09:42 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:

> I don't think that the Fedora Board (or FESCo) can supercede the CLA,
> which states that original contributions without prior license are
> covered under the CLA. This is because the CLA is a signed agreement
> explicitly to cover this case.

+1

Since the topic under question is clearly covered by the CLA, any other
statement that stands alone or interprets the CLA for the general public
would be like the Board/FESCo giving legal advice.

If someone doesn't feel that the CLA covers their spec file needs, they
need to hire their own attorney for legal advice.

What we could consider is making the CLA much more prominent, pointing
to it as the mortar that holds Fedora together. Let people then go
figure out for themselves how that CLA applies to their own legal and
contributory questions.

After last year's FUDCon, I took the task of writing an interpretation
of the CLA in plainer language. When I took it to Legal, the reply was
clear -- we do not need to provide a second, duplicate document that
covers the same content as the CLA. It would be like providing legal
interpretation for the world. If we want to make the CLA more clear,
let's request changes to the document itself, not create a special
interpretive document.

- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Jan 2, 2008 10:48 AM, Karsten Wade <kwade@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 09:42 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>
> > I don't think that the Fedora Board (or FESCo) can supercede the CLA,
> > which states that original contributions without prior license are
> > covered under the CLA. This is because the CLA is a signed agreement
> > explicitly to cover this case.
>
> +1
>
> Since the topic under question is clearly covered by the CLA, any other
> statement that stands alone or interprets the CLA for the general public
> would be like the Board/FESCo giving legal advice.
>
> If someone doesn't feel that the CLA covers their spec file needs, they
> need to hire their own attorney for legal advice.
>
> What we could consider is making the CLA much more prominent, pointing
> to it as the mortar that holds Fedora together. Let people then go
> figure out for themselves how that CLA applies to their own legal and
> contributory questions.
>
> After last year's FUDCon, I took the task of writing an interpretation
> of the CLA in plainer language. When I took it to Legal, the reply was
> clear -- we do not need to provide a second, duplicate document that
> covers the same content as the CLA. It would be like providing legal
> interpretation for the world. If we want to make the CLA more clear,
> let's request changes to the document itself, not create a special
> interpretive document.
>

Agree. I think that any clarifications should try to make the core
document clearer. The goal should be readability and clarity.

The one thing that should be asked from Legal is if the license needs
to be listed in part or in whole in the SPEC file. From my point of
view, the SPEC file is not much different from a Python script or
Makefile to create a finished package. Who owns the copyright of the
SPEC file, and what is the usage license of that 'code' is important
for some people. Requiring that this is clear inside the SPEC would be
useful.

Should this go to the main advisory board or the FESCO?


--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

On 15.01.2008 19:23, Dennis Gilmore wrote:

On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

On 15.01.2008 19:01, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other projects
| http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc

Does anybody still care? Seems the Board either do not understand what
we/I'm up to or they ignore it.
No one but you sees a problem. It's covered by the CLA.


Please explain to me: What meaning has the CLA (a contract between a
Fedora contributer and Fedora/Red Hat) to someone else that receives
software from Fedora?

I'm not familiar with US law, but in Germany a contract between A and B
has no meaning to C.


CLA is not just a contract between A and B or more specifically it
allows the same rights to all recipients which in this case would
include C. I believe spot already explained that in


https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00031.html

Rahul


_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

On 15.01.2008 20:01, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 15.01.2008 19:23, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>> On 15.01.2008 19:01, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>>> /topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other projects
>>>>> | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
>>>> Does anybody still care? Seems the Board either do not understand what
>>>> we/I'm up to or they ignore it.
>>> No one but you sees a problem. It's covered by the CLA.
>> Please explain to me: What meaning has the CLA (a contract between a
>> Fedora contributer and Fedora/Red Hat) to someone else that receives
>> software from Fedora?
>> I'm not familiar with US law, but in Germany a contract between A and B
>> has no meaning to C.
> CLA is not just a contract between A and B or more specifically it
> allows the same rights to all recipients which in this case would
> include C. I believe spot already explained that in
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00031.html

Which I replied to in
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00032.html
with the words:

[...] I can't know if the all work I get from Fedora was submitted
by someone that signed the CLA. [...]

Cu
knurd

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

On 15.01.2008 20:01, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

On 15.01.2008 19:23, Dennis Gilmore wrote:

On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

On 15.01.2008 19:01, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other projects
| http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc

Does anybody still care? Seems the Board either do not understand what
we/I'm up to or they ignore it.
No one but you sees a problem. It's covered by the CLA.

Please explain to me: What meaning has the CLA (a contract between a
Fedora contributer and Fedora/Red Hat) to someone else that receives
software from Fedora?
I'm not familiar with US law, but in Germany a contract between A and B
has no meaning to C.
CLA is not just a contract between A and B or more specifically it
allows the same rights to all recipients which in this case would
include C. I believe spot already explained that in

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00031.html


Which I replied to in
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00032.html
with the words:

[...] I can't know if the all work I get from Fedora was submitted
by someone that signed the CLA. [...]


All the work definitely isn't but spec files would be. That is the only
thing you are worried about. Right?


Rahul

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

On 15.01.2008 20:21, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 15.01.2008 20:01, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>> On 15.01.2008 19:23, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>>>> On 15.01.2008 19:01, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>>>>> /topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other projects
>>>>>>> | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
>>>>>> Does anybody still care? Seems the Board either do not understand what
>>>>>> we/I'm up to or they ignore it.
>>>>> No one but you sees a problem. It's covered by the CLA.
>>>> Please explain to me: What meaning has the CLA (a contract between a
>>>> Fedora contributer and Fedora/Red Hat) to someone else that receives
>>>> software from Fedora?
>>>> I'm not familiar with US law, but in Germany a contract between A and B
>>>> has no meaning to C.
>>> CLA is not just a contract between A and B or more specifically it
>>> allows the same rights to all recipients which in this case would
>>> include C. I believe spot already explained that in
>>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00031.html
>> Which I replied to in
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00032.html
>> with the words:
>> [...] I can't know if the all work I get from Fedora was submitted
>> by someone that signed the CLA. [...]
> All the work definitely isn't but spec files would be.

Then I'm sure it can be written down to finally solve the iossue?

> That is the only
> thing you are worried about. Right?

I think that's what people were worried about when the issue came up on
this list.

CU
knurd

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

On 15.01.2008 20:21, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

On 15.01.2008 20:01, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

On 15.01.2008 19:23, Dennis Gilmore wrote:

On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

On 15.01.2008 19:01, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

/topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other projects
| http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc

Does anybody still care? Seems the Board either do not understand what
we/I'm up to or they ignore it.
No one but you sees a problem. It's covered by the CLA.

Please explain to me: What meaning has the CLA (a contract between a
Fedora contributer and Fedora/Red Hat) to someone else that receives
software from Fedora?
I'm not familiar with US law, but in Germany a contract between A and B
has no meaning to C.
CLA is not just a contract between A and B or more specifically it
allows the same rights to all recipients which in this case would
include C. I believe spot already explained that in

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00031.html

Which I replied to in
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00032.html
with the words:
[...] I can't know if the all work I get from Fedora was submitted
by someone that signed the CLA. [...]

All the work definitely isn't but spec files would be.


Then I'm sure it can be written down to finally solve the iossue?


It is written down within the CLA that the contributions that every
Fedora contributor makes falls under the CLA and that includes spec files.


We consulted with legal before on whether we can explain the CLA better
in another document and the legal opinion was that if any clarifications
are necessary, it should done within the CLA itself and not in a
separate document as any contradictions are considered risky IIRC.
However I think you can point this out in the EPEL FAQ for example in
this way:


---

How are RPM spec files in Fedora licensed?

All original Fedora contributions are governed by the Fedora contributor
license agreement (CLA) [Link]. This allows all recipients to have


"A perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up,
royalty free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare
derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and
distribute this Contribution and such derivative works"

More information is available in the CLA.

---

Rahul

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

On 15.01.2008 21:00, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 15.01.2008 20:21, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>> On 15.01.2008 20:01, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>>> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>>>> On 15.01.2008 19:23, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 15.01.2008 19:01, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> /topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other projects
>>>>>>>>> | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
>>>>>>>> Does anybody still care? Seems the Board either do not understand what
>>>>>>>> we/I'm up to or they ignore it.
>>>>>>> No one but you sees a problem. It's covered by the CLA.
>>>>>> Please explain to me: What meaning has the CLA (a contract between a
>>>>>> Fedora contributer and Fedora/Red Hat) to someone else that receives
>>>>>> software from Fedora?
>>>>>> I'm not familiar with US law, but in Germany a contract between A and B
>>>>>> has no meaning to C.
>>>>> CLA is not just a contract between A and B or more specifically it
>>>>> allows the same rights to all recipients which in this case would
>>>>> include C. I believe spot already explained that in
>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00031.html
>>>> Which I replied to in
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00032.html
>>>> with the words:
>>>> [...] I can't know if the all work I get from Fedora was submitted
>>>> by someone that signed the CLA. [...]
>>> All the work definitely isn't but spec files would be.
>> Then I'm sure it can be written down to finally solve the iossue?
> It is written down within the CLA

Which CLA? The one I signed in the early Fedora days is not the one that
is available today. There are afaik even today different CLAs for Red
Hat, IBM, Dell and community contributers -- I don't know what's written
in them. And I don't known which of those is binding if I take
something from Fedora.

> We consulted with legal before on whether we can explain the CLA better
> in another document and the legal opinion was that if any clarifications
> are necessary, it should done within the CLA itself and not in a
> separate document as any contradictions are considered risky IIRC.
> However I think you can point this out in the EPEL FAQ for example in
> this way:

I'm not going to put any legal statement anywhere. That is exactly what
we have the Board for and that's why I asked the Board to handle that.

Cu
knurd

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:



Which CLA? The one I signed in the early Fedora days is not the one that
is available today. There are afaik even today different CLAs for Red
Hat, IBM, Dell and community contributers -- I don't know what's written
in them. And I don't known which of those is binding if I take
something from Fedora.


These don't differ as far as spec files are concerned IIUC. If you need
further clarification on that, you need to ask that explicitly to the
board.


We consulted with legal before on whether we can explain the CLA better
in another document and the legal opinion was that if any clarifications
are necessary, it should done within the CLA itself and not in a
separate document as any contradictions are considered risky IIRC.
However I think you can point this out in the EPEL FAQ for example in
this way:


I'm not going to put any legal statement anywhere. That is exactly what
we have the Board for and that's why I asked the Board to handle that.


It is not a separate legal statement. It is a direct quote from the CLA
and the board has explicitly said that documenting this in the wiki is
ok for them.


Rahul

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 22:01 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> I'm not going to put any legal statement anywhere. That is exactly what
> we have the Board for and that's why I asked the Board to handle that.

Here:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#LicenseOfFedoraSPECFiles

This should put this to bed. Happy?

~spot

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list