FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-03-2010, 03:13 PM
Michel Alexandre Salim
 
Default JBoss stalled (was status of some packages ??)

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 06/03/2010 10:33 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
>> On 06/01/2010 05:09 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/29/2010 07:25 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
>>>> JBoss[1] is still a *big* deficit. Potential for f14/15 ?
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure JBoss is still a no-go because of poor licensing,
>>> specifically:
>>>
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479598
>>
>> That is a nonsense.
>>
>> JBoss is stalled because it depends on a package with:
>>
>> - incompatible license
>> - six years old
>> - dead upstream
>>
>> :-?
>
> This is true (well, the problem is that there is no applicable and valid
> license, not so much that it is incompatible), no matter how absurd it
> might seem.
>
> In general, Java licensing is... poor at best. This is admittedly a
> rather confusing case, but still.
>
This seems really dangerous. If JBoss has an unclear legal status due
to this, perhaps aopalliance needs to be reimplemented from scratch,
or JBoss should not depend on it?

--
Michel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-03-2010, 03:54 PM
Iain Arnell
 
Default JBoss stalled (was status of some packages ??)

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim
<michael.silvanus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> This is true (well, the problem is that there is no applicable and valid
>> license, not so much that it is incompatible), no matter how absurd it
>> might seem.
>>
>> In general, Java licensing is... poor at best. This is admittedly a
>> rather confusing case, but still.
>>
> This seems really dangerous. If JBoss has an unclear legal status due
> to this, perhaps aopalliance needs to be reimplemented from scratch,
> or JBoss should not depend on it?

And slightly weird that it's okay for Red Hat to distribute it
themselves, both commercially and as open source from jboss.org, but
it's questionable for Fedora.

--
Iain.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-03-2010, 04:29 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default JBoss stalled (was status of some packages ??)

On 06/03/2010 11:54 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim
> <michael.silvanus@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is true (well, the problem is that there is no applicable and valid
>>> license, not so much that it is incompatible), no matter how absurd it
>>> might seem.
>>>
>>> In general, Java licensing is... poor at best. This is admittedly a
>>> rather confusing case, but still.
>>>
>> This seems really dangerous. If JBoss has an unclear legal status due
>> to this, perhaps aopalliance needs to be reimplemented from scratch,
>> or JBoss should not depend on it?
>
> And slightly weird that it's okay for Red Hat to distribute it
> themselves, both commercially and as open source from jboss.org, but
> it's questionable for Fedora.

I can't speak on what Red Hat does on a larger scale. I do know that it
is important to me and Fedora that we do it properly, or not at all.

~spot

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-03-2010, 06:01 PM
Matthew Miller
 
Default JBoss stalled (was status of some packages ??)

On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 12:29:15PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> I can't speak on what Red Hat does on a larger scale. I do know that it
> is important to me and Fedora that we do it properly, or not at all.

Yes please. This is why I trust Fedora.

--
Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org>
Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional & Research Computing Services
Harvard School of Engineering & Applied Sciences
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-03-2010, 06:04 PM
Jon Ciesla
 
Default JBoss stalled (was status of some packages ??)

On 06/03/2010 01:01 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 12:29:15PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
>
>> I can't speak on what Red Hat does on a larger scale. I do know that it
>> is important to me and Fedora that we do it properly, or not at all.
>>
> Yes please. This is why I trust Fedora.
>
>
Hear, hear. One of the thing I like best about Fedora is the staunch
strictness (or strich staunchness?) where the law is concerned. I don't
have to worry about going to jail for what's on my laptop.

Er, the software, anyway.

-J

--
- in your fear, speak only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-03-2010, 06:10 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default JBoss stalled (was status of some packages ??)

On 06/03/2010 09:59 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>
> I can't speak on what Red Hat does on a larger scale. I do know that it
> is important to me and Fedora that we do it properly, or not at all.
>

Yep. Red Hat can do what is necessary for the commercial success of
free software. Meanwhile, Fedora's focus on long term sustainability
within a community is a breath of fresh air. You play by the well
defined rules or stay out of it. The expectations are clear.

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-03-2010, 06:31 PM
Alex Hudson
 
Default JBoss stalled (was status of some packages ??)

On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 12:29 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 06/03/2010 11:54 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
> > And slightly weird that it's okay for Red Hat to distribute it
> > themselves, both commercially and as open source from jboss.org, but
> > it's questionable for Fedora.
>
> I can't speak on what Red Hat does on a larger scale. I do know that it
> is important to me and Fedora that we do it properly, or not at all.

If everyone else is distributing JBoss, though, that calls into question
whether it's Fedora doing it "properly".

Worrying about a set of rights which are unwaivable seems on the face of
it to be exhibiting an abundance of over-caution, and it seems
particularly sad that Fedora is losing out having to refrain from
distributing another Red Hat-sponsored project.

Cheers

Alex.



--
This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean.
http://www.betterhosted.com

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-03-2010, 07:09 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default JBoss stalled (was status of some packages ??)

On 06/03/2010 02:31 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
> If everyone else is distributing JBoss, though, that calls into question
> whether it's Fedora doing it "properly".
>
> Worrying about a set of rights which are unwaivable seems on the face of
> it to be exhibiting an abundance of over-caution, and it seems
> particularly sad that Fedora is losing out having to refrain from
> distributing another Red Hat-sponsored project.

You might feel that way, but the simple fact is that French citizens can
not abandon copyright (aka put works into the Public Domain). This is
the only license that we've been given, but since it is not valid, we
can't use it. Without a license, we cannot include this in Fedora,
because we have none of the rights required for Free Software.

The fact that it comes from "another Red Hat-sponsored project" is
wholly irrelevant.

The argument that "everyone else is doing it, so it must be fine" is
also completely false. As my mother eloquently put it to me at age 6,
"If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?".

The bigger concern is that this code is abandonware. In an active
project, this would already be resolved. It also illustrates the point
of being sure that projects have valid licensing from the start.

~spot

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-03-2010, 07:24 PM
Alex Hudson
 
Default JBoss stalled (was status of some packages ??)

On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 15:09 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> The argument that "everyone else is doing it, so it must be fine" is
> also completely false. As my mother eloquently put it to me at age 6,
> "If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?".

That's not the argument I'm putting forward.

The "French cannot waive copyright" argument brings you to the
conclusion you stated; "[The license] is not valid, we can't use it".

That same argument holds, as far as I can see, for every other
distributor.

So effectively we're arguing that everyone else, Red Hat included, is
either oblivious to the legal risk or they looked at it and came to the
wrong conclusion. All of them.

I'm not saying that's true one way or another, but it would seem to me
that at least getting a second opinion would be worthwhile, because
Fedora's legal resource appears to be making some pretty extraordinary
claims.

And if it is true, I would bet there are significantly more problems
that aopalliance, since there are very few [no] licenses which deal with
EUisms like moral rights, database rights, etc...

Cheers

Alex.



--
This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean.
http://www.betterhosted.com

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-03-2010, 07:52 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default JBoss stalled (was status of some packages ??)

On 06/03/2010 03:24 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
> That's not the argument I'm putting forward.
>
> The "French cannot waive copyright" argument brings you to the
> conclusion you stated; "[The license] is not valid, we can't use it".
>
> That same argument holds, as far as I can see, for every other
> distributor.

Yes, but what Red Hat (or every other distributor) does aside from
Fedora is not my responsibility.

> So effectively we're arguing that everyone else, Red Hat included, is
> either oblivious to the legal risk or they looked at it and came to the
> wrong conclusion. All of them.

More likely is that they did not look, or they are unaware of the
complexities around Public Domain.

> I'm not saying that's true one way or another, but it would seem to me
> that at least getting a second opinion would be worthwhile, because
> Fedora's legal resource appears to be making some pretty extraordinary
> claims.

They're not so extraordinary, and yes, I did get second and third
opinions on this. In Europe, the idea of moral rights and the inherent
conflict with Public Domain declarations (where a copyright holder
explicitly abandons copyright) is well known. As I have pointed out,
this is one of the main reasons why the CC-0 license was drafted, to
provide the same functional intended end result of a Public Domain
declaration (users can do whatever they want with it) while avoiding the
conflict of moral rights (except as it would conflict with the moral
rights of the copyright holder).

The fact that the Creative Commons created a license _explicitly_ to
work around this issue provides proof that this issue is legitimate and
valid.

> And if it is true, I would bet there are significantly more problems
> that aopalliance, since there are very few [no] licenses which deal with
> EUisms like moral rights, database rights, etc...

Not so much. Public Domain declarations are special. Normal FOSS
licenses don't hit this, because they are a list of what rights you have
for the works they cover. A Public Domain declaration is the abandonment
of all copyright, and accordingly, the ability for anyone to do
_ANYTHING_ with that work. It isn't even a license.

The fact that Public Domain declarations are possible in some
jurisdictions (including the United States) further confuses this,
because if the aopalliance copyright holders were American instead of
French, we would not have this problem. Arguably, someone with a limited
understanding of the complexities around Public Domain declarations
might see the words "in the Public Domain" and just assume everything
was kosher. We know better, and we check all Public Domain declarations
extra carefully. Which is how we caught it.

~spot
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:03 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org