permission to use spec files in other projects
 

Hi!

The topic "permission to use Fedora spec files in other projects" is
still on the EPEL agenda, as that's the area where the topic came up.

@Board, @FESCo: Any progress on this? The last update on the topic and
the discussion didn't solve the problem afaik. What's needed is afaics a
official statement like "Spec files from Fedora are licensed as <foo> if
not otherwise specified in the header of the spec file" from the Board
in a official place.

Reminder, the problem that needs to be solved: a random person (say: my
neighbor who is no Fedora contributer and thus has never heard of or
seen the CLA) should be sure that he won't get sued it he takes a SPEC
file from the Fedora project, modifies it and publish SRPM build from it.

Sure, it sounds a bit like a academic problem (which until now often is
ignored), but it nevertheless should be solved IMHO.

Cu
knurd

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

permission to use spec files in other projects
 

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 08:34:39 -0600
Rex Dieter <rdieter@math.unl.edu> wrote:

> yada yada, basically says (to my own non-lawyer interpretation) that
> folks can take these fedora-contributed materials and do pretty much
> whatever.

Which is great from the pov of fedora contributed. Alas the side issue
here is what to do about re-using in whole or in part specs from other
projects that are under a specific license.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

permission to use spec files in other projects
 

On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 03:18:19PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The topic "permission to use Fedora spec files in other projects" is
> still on the EPEL agenda, as that's the area where the topic came up.
>
> @Board, @FESCo: Any progress on this? The last update on the topic and
> the discussion didn't solve the problem afaik. What's needed is afaics a
> official statement like "Spec files from Fedora are licensed as <foo> if
> not otherwise specified in the header of the spec file" from the Board
> in a official place.

The Board discussed this, and decided that the spec files need to be
licensed in one of two ways:

1) preferred - with the same license as the source code it builds.
This is the default unless the spec file specifies otherwise. As
every Fedora-acceptable license allows for derivative works, this
should satisfy people's needs and obeys the principle of least
surprise.

2) less preferred - with a license that is extremely permissive, such
as MIT/X11, specified in the spec file itself.


Thanks,
Matt

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

permission to use spec files in other projects
 

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

Hi!

The topic "permission to use Fedora spec files in other projects" is
still on the EPEL agenda, as that's the area where the topic came up.


@Board, @FESCo: Any progress on this?


Pardon my ignorance and/or naivety, but isn't this covered by the CLA,
clause 2:

2. Contributor Grant of License. You hereby grant to Red Hat, Inc., on
behalf of the Project, and to recipients of software distributed by the
Project:

* (a) 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
your Contribution and such derivative works; and,


yada yada, basically says (to my own non-lawyer interpretation) that
folks can take these fedora-contributed materials and do pretty much
whatever.


-- Rex

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

permission to use spec files in other projects
 

Jesse Keating wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 08:34:39 -0600
Rex Dieter <rdieter@math.unl.edu> wrote:

yada yada, basically says (to my own non-lawyer interpretation) that
folks can take these fedora-contributed materials and do pretty much
whatever.


Which is great from the pov of fedora contributed. Alas the side issue
here is what to do about re-using in whole or in part specs from other
projects that are under a specific license.


Thorsten specifically asked if other projects could use fedora's specs,
not the other way around. ??


-- Rex

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

permission to use spec files in other projects
 

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 15:18 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The topic "permission to use Fedora spec files in other projects" is
> still on the EPEL agenda, as that's the area where the topic came up.
>
> @Board, @FESCo: Any progress on this? The last update on the topic and
> the discussion didn't solve the problem afaik. What's needed is afaics a
> official statement like "Spec files from Fedora are licensed as <foo> if
> not otherwise specified in the header of the spec file" from the Board
> in a official place.
>
> Reminder, the problem that needs to be solved: a random person (say: my
> neighbor who is no Fedora contributer and thus has never heard of or
> seen the CLA) should be sure that he won't get sued it he takes a SPEC
> file from the Fedora project, modifies it and publish SRPM build from it.
>
> Sure, it sounds a bit like a academic problem (which until now often is
> ignored), but it nevertheless should be solved IMHO.

As I've said before, my stance is this:

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.

For the Fedora Board to say "all spec files are under the BSD license,
unless otherwise specified", it would directly conflict with the CLA.

Above and beyond that, I'd throw in the following points:
- Most common free/open software licenses aren't really appropriate for
spec files.
- Even with such a policy in place, the only solidly enforceable way to
implement a spec file license is to explicitly list it in the header.
- There is the possibility of confusion around the license of the spec
file vs the license of the bits contained within the generated SRPM/RPM.

~spot

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

permission to use spec files in other projects
 

Rex Dieter wrote:

Jesse Keating wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 08:34:39 -0600
Rex Dieter <rdieter@math.unl.edu> wrote:

yada yada, basically says (to my own non-lawyer interpretation) that
folks can take these fedora-contributed materials and do pretty much
whatever.


Which is great from the pov of fedora contributed. Alas the side issue
here is what to do about re-using in whole or in part specs from other
projects that are under a specific license.


Thorsten specifically asked if other projects could use fedora's specs,
not the other way around. ??


OK, I get it now, ignore me. Move along. :)

-- Rex

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

permission to use spec files in other projects
 

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 15:18 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

Hi!

The topic "permission to use Fedora spec files in other projects" is
still on the EPEL agenda, as that's the area where the topic came up.

@Board, @FESCo: Any progress on this? The last update on the topic and
the discussion didn't solve the problem afaik. What's needed is afaics a
official statement like "Spec files from Fedora are licensed as <foo> if
not otherwise specified in the header of the spec file" from the Board
in a official place.

Reminder, the problem that needs to be solved: a random person (say: my
neighbor who is no Fedora contributer and thus has never heard of or
seen the CLA) should be sure that he won't get sued it he takes a SPEC
file from the Fedora project, modifies it and publish SRPM build from it.

Sure, it sounds a bit like a academic problem (which until now often is
ignored), but it nevertheless should be solved IMHO.


As I've said before, my stance is this:

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.

For the Fedora Board to say "all spec files are under the BSD license,
unless otherwise specified", it would directly conflict with the CLA.


Red Hat as the copyright holder can do this however IIUC which then can
choose to declare the license of the specs under a permissive license
via a header on the spec files. Wouldn't that solve this issue?


Rahul

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

permission to use spec files in other projects
 

Ralf Corsepius wrote:

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 20:29 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:


For the Fedora Board to say "all spec files are under the BSD license,
unless otherwise specified", it would directly conflict with the CLA.

Red Hat as the copyright holder

Red Hat is not the copyright holder - period.


The CLA which all contributors have signed certainly does indicate
otherwise.


http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/CLA

"2. Contributor Grant of License. You hereby grant to Red Hat, Inc., on
behalf of the Project, and to recipients of software distributed by the
Project:


* (a) 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
your Contribution and such derivative works; and, "


Rahul

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

permission to use spec files in other projects
 

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 20:29 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 15:18 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> The topic "permission to use Fedora spec files in other projects" is
> >> still on the EPEL agenda, as that's the area where the topic came up.
> >>
> >> @Board, @FESCo: Any progress on this? The last update on the topic and
> >> the discussion didn't solve the problem afaik. What's needed is afaics a
> >> official statement like "Spec files from Fedora are licensed as <foo> if
> >> not otherwise specified in the header of the spec file" from the Board
> >> in a official place.
> >>
> >> Reminder, the problem that needs to be solved: a random person (say: my
> >> neighbor who is no Fedora contributer and thus has never heard of or
> >> seen the CLA) should be sure that he won't get sued it he takes a SPEC
> >> file from the Fedora project, modifies it and publish SRPM build from it.
> >>
> >> Sure, it sounds a bit like a academic problem (which until now often is
> >> ignored), but it nevertheless should be solved IMHO.
> >
> > As I've said before, my stance is this:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > For the Fedora Board to say "all spec files are under the BSD license,
> > unless otherwise specified", it would directly conflict with the CLA.
>
> Red Hat as the copyright holder
Red Hat is not the copyright holder - period.

> can do this however IIUC which then can
> choose to declare the license of the specs under a permissive license
> via a header on the spec files. Wouldn't that solve this issue?
>
> Rahul
>
> _______________________________________________
> fedora-advisory-board mailing list
> fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

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