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 05-20-2008, 05:41 PM
Gene Czarcinski
 
Default gkrellm themes

I have been a gkrellm fan for a number of years. While gkrellm is distributed
as part of Fedora, gkrellm-themes is not being distributed starting with F8
(although the package is still available as part of the F7 distribution).

The reason gkrellm-themes is no longer distributed is that there is no
specific licensing indicated for almost all of the themes:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=385131

While themes are not necessary for gkrellm operation, they are nice "eye
candy" and some produce more readable displays than others ... it is a
personal preference.

I am volunteering to be a "limited time" upstream package "assembler" to
create a new base tarball (gkrellm-themes instead of gkrellm-skins) which
will have only themes with acceptable licensing starting with the two in the
current package. But, before diving head first into an empty swimming pool,
I wanted to determine if there is enough interest to warrent my efforts.

Using my friend google, I located:
http://themes.freshmeat.net/browse/969/
all of which are marked in freshmeat as having GPL, OSI Artistic, freely
distributable, or freeware "licenses". While freshmeat marks these packages
as having licenses, examining a couple of the theme tarballs indicates that
no license is part of the theme tarball itself. [see (9) below]

First of all, I need guidance as to what licensing would be acceptable (e.g.,
GPL, OSI Artistic, freely distributable, freeware, BSD, etc.). I need
comments by (and perhaps some contact with) IP lawyers such as those working
for Red Hat.

If I proceed with this packaging, my plan is:

1. Use the two GPL'ed themes in the F7 package as the base.

2. Add any other themes which have licensing embedded in a theme tarball.

3. Go through the themes in the F7 package and the freshmeat list to identify
author(s) for each theme ... if there is no author (e.g., anonymous), drop
that theme.

4. Send each theme author an email asking them for appropriate licensing. If
I get a "NO" answer, drop that theme. If the email bounces (or I have not
heard from the author after a month), drop that theme. For themes which have
multiple authors (the "last" author hacked a theme of another author), lack
of response or a negative response for anyone in the chain results in the
theme being dropped.

5. My preferred response is for the theme's author to send me (or provide me
access to) an updated tarball with appropriate licensing embedded ... add this
theme tarball to gkrellm-themes.

6. If I get a response that indicates to use "xxx" acceptable licensing and
provides me with a copy of that license, add the theme tarball and then add
the email message and the license info to the gkrellm-themes but do not
modify the theme tarball itself ... the rpm package will need to put the info
in the appropriate place ... maybe make them doc files distributed
in /usr/share/doc/gkrellm-themes.../ as license.<themename>

7. If I get a response that indicates to use "xxx" acceptable licensing but
does not provide a copy of the license but I can locate a copy, proceed as
(6) above.

8. If I get a response of "whatever ... do what you want" (or words to that
effect), my action is ??? [add the theme, the email message, and a "GPL
license??] ... what to do ... what to do?? Guidance please.

9. With respect to the packages listed on freshmeat, how do I handle packages
where freshmeat indicates a license but none is embedded? I found one a theme
with a README embedded in the tarball which says:

"If you wish to alter this theme or redistribute it, please give me credit
or I'll hunt you down and rip your eyes out with my teeth.
Ok? good. "

How do I handle this? There is an implication that the theme is under some
sort of "freely available" license.

There may be other responses which is why I am interest in IP lawyer contacts.
This may be need where a theme has multiple (chained) authors which have
different ideas as to what the licensing should be.

As I said, I Am Not A Lawyer and I intend to take all claims of authorship at
face value ... if an author says he created the theme and puts it under an
acceptable license, then that is it.

Similarly, I will be making no artistic judgments on what is bundled into
gkrellm-themes. Naturally, if anything is truly offensive, then that theme
may be rejected similar to what was done with screensavers a number of years
ago. In any case, turning gkrellm-themes into a Fedora rpm package will
involve the usual review process which should kick out anything really
tasteless.

I am not currently a Maintainer on any other package so I would prefer to turn
the result over to a "regular" Maintainer. That is, if I can pull enough
themes together to be worth the effort ... right now, two themes does not
seem to be worth the effort. If nobody raises their hand, then I guess I
will have to learn how to be a Fedora Package Maintainer.

Questions, comments, guidance, etc. are solicited.
--
Gene

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-20-2008, 06:29 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default gkrellm themes

On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 13:41 -0400, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> First of all, I need guidance as to what licensing would be acceptable
> (e.g.,
> GPL, OSI Artistic, freely distributable, freeware, BSD, etc.). I
> need
> comments by (and perhaps some contact with) IP lawyers such as those
> working
> for Red Hat.
>
We have a list of acceptable licenses here:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

Short answers:

GPL: yes
Artistic 1.0: no
Artistic 2.0: yes
BSD: yes
"Freely Distributable": maybe, I'd need to look.
"freeware": maybe, I'd need to look.

I'd be happy to audit anything that you're unsure about.

~spot, with my Fedora Legal cap on

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-23-2008, 09:36 PM
Gene Czarcinski
 
Default gkrellm themes

On Tuesday 20 May 2008 14:29:06 Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> We have a list of acceptable licenses here:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

OK, I took a look at the list ... wow that is a long list! I guess a lot of
folks like spending time crafting unique licenses.

I assume all licenses in the "good" list are OK and all in the "bad" list are
not.

Do you have a suggestion as to a "preferred" license for this kind of
stuff ... graphics and configuration files mostly. I would really like to
get most folks to all use the same license (see below).

Also, do you have any suggestions on how to handle cases where multiple
individuals have had their hand in things: A creates a theme. B then
modifies A's theme to create a new theme. C comes along and modifies B's
theme plus add some stuff from a theme created by D to create yet another
theme. That may sound convoluted but it appears to be the case for some of
these themes.

I also assume that any theme citing Carsten Haitzler's (Rasterman's)
enlightenment window manager as a source is OK (I do not need that author's
blessing too).

I am not sure what will be needed in the SPEC file with respect to licensing
(since you are reviewing spec files). I sure do not want to see a bunch of
theme packages ... one for every license type. That is too much
over-achieving.

Gene

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-06-2008, 09:59 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default gkrellm themes

Gene,

Apologies for the delayed reply. Please keep in mind that IANAL, I just
play one on TV.

On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 17:36 -0400, Gene Czarcinski wrote:

> I assume all licenses in the "good" list are OK and all in the "bad" list are
> not.

Yes, this is correct.

> Do you have a suggestion as to a "preferred" license for this kind of
> stuff ... graphics and configuration files mostly. I would really like to
> get most folks to all use the same license (see below).

For graphics, you can safely use the licenses here:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses_3

I would specifically recommend CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, as those provide the
most flexibility and the opportunity for derived art.

For configuration files, generally any permissive license should work.
You might avoid any license that is too software specific, but MIT
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style) might not be a
bad fit.

> Also, do you have any suggestions on how to handle cases where multiple
> individuals have had their hand in things: A creates a theme. B then
> modifies A's theme to create a new theme. C comes along and modifies B's
> theme plus add some stuff from a theme created by D to create yet another
> theme. That may sound convoluted but it appears to be the case for some of
> these themes.

Well, in such a scenario, A, B, C, and D probably have made
copyrightable contributions to the work (the ABCD theme). Unless B, C,
and D have agreed to assign copyright to A (or some other single party),
they would all need to agree on the license for the work. This is a big
reason why it is important for anyone generating copyrightable content
to license that content. If A had put it under the CC-BY license, then
when B, C, and D made changes, their changes would be automatically
available under that license (note, this is not always true, but it is
in this specific scenario).

> I also assume that any theme citing Carsten Haitzler's (Rasterman's)
> enlightenment window manager as a source is OK (I do not need that author's
> blessing too).

You should see what license that Carsten's source content is under.
Assuming that the derived works do not have a license which conflicts
with Carsten's license, there should not be a need to get his blessing.
In the event where no license is defined on the new derived work, you
can safely assume the derived work inherits Carsten's license (but it
never hurts to ask the copyright holder who made the modifications for
his intention).

> I am not sure what will be needed in the SPEC file with respect to licensing
> (since you are reviewing spec files). I sure do not want to see a bunch of
> theme packages ... one for every license type. That is too much
> over-achieving.

No, this should not be necessary. When you get to that point, I can help
you through it.

~spot

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:07 PM.

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