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 > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-07-2010, 09:46 AM
Hanno Böck
 
Default Some ideas on the licensing issue

Hi,

Had some more thoughts about that licensing issue and wanted to make some
suggestions.

I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense. The problem with it is, as
stated by various people, that we have different GPLs. GPL2 and 3 are
incompatible, so it doesn't mean "GPL-compatible" are all licenses that can be
mixed together. I don't know how/if we should resolve this.

Difference between OSI and FSF approved: AFAIK, I once read about one license
that OSI approved and FSF not. Do we have any affected packages in the tree
where FSF and OSI differ? I think the definitions of FSF and OSI are pretty
much the same, their differences are more on a political level, not on a
licensing one. So I'd like it much more to have one big "This is free and open
source software" set.

For documentation, we may want to have another set? I'll add one with the well
known free documentation licenses (FDL, CC by, cc by-sa). If we decide to go
some other way, we can throw it away, but I wanted to start something ;-)


What bites me is the man-pages issue. Is it really the case that there's no
free (as in freedom) man-pages package? Maybe then we should provide an option
to install the base system without man-pages?

--
Hanno Böck Blog: http://www.hboeck.de/
GPG: 3DBD3B20 Jabber/Mail: hanno@hboeck.de

http://schokokeks.org - professional webhosting
 
Old 01-07-2010, 01:51 PM
Ulrich Mueller
 
Default Some ideas on the licensing issue

>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:

> I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense. The problem with
> it is, as stated by various people, that we have different GPLs.
> GPL2 and 3 are incompatible, so it doesn't mean "GPL-compatible" are
> all licenses that can be mixed together. I don't know how/if we
> should resolve this.

So what do you suggest? Remove "GPL-COMPATIBLE" and move everything
into "FSF-APPROVED"?

> For documentation, we may want to have another set? I'll add one
> with the well known free documentation licenses (FDL, CC by, cc
> by-sa). If we decide to go some other way, we can throw it away, but
> I wanted to start something ;-)

Is your "FREE-DOCUMENTS" meant to include things like fonts, or do we
need another group for them?

> What bites me is the man-pages issue. Is it really the case that
> there's no free (as in freedom) man-pages package?

For man-pages "freedist" isn't really a good label. It should rather
be something like "as-is GPL-2 BSD". I've opened bug 299893 for it.

> Maybe then we should provide an option to install the base system
> without man-pages?

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. We're not Debian.

Ulrich
 
Old 01-07-2010, 01:52 PM
Richard Freeman
 
Default Some ideas on the licensing issue

On 01/07/2010 05:46 AM, Hanno Böck wrote:


I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense.


++



Difference between OSI and FSF approved: ... I think the definitions
of FSF and OSI are pretty much the same, ... So I'd like it much more
to have one big "This is free and open source software" set.


--

I think that we should make the license groups as objective as possible.
EVERYBODY can agree that such a license is or isn't OSI approved or
FSF approved - whether they hate or love the FSF/etc.


By all means every gentoo dev is welcome to post on their blog "if you
want free and open source software put this in your ACCEPT_LICENSE" -
and everybody can post comments on the blog calling them the next saint
of the Church of GNU, or the devil incarnate. Let's just keep the
portage tree to the facts.


Now groups that are fairly legally objective like
"redistributable-without-modification" I think are useful. They could
be useful in doing QA checks on RESTRICT=mirror, for example. However,
let's try to stick with simple objective criteria that both people who
hate a license and love it can agree on.





What bites me is the man-pages issue. Is it really the case that
there's no free (as in freedom) man-pages package? Maybe then we
should provide an option to install the base system without
man-pages?



I guess strictly-speaking man-pages aren't essential as part of system,
but they'd seem like a big omission to leave out. Unless we want a
free-only profile (nobody seems to want to fully support this), I think
that the better option is this:


Write up instructions on how to have a free gentoo install and put it on
your blog or whatever. If they've good enough maybe we can have the doc
team make it official (gotta consider support issues here).


You can always stick the man-pages in package_provided or whatever so
that portage doesn't try to install it.


You can also make your own profile, and post instructions for the world
to see. Again, break it and you get to keep the pieces and all that...
 
Old 01-07-2010, 04:37 PM
Hanno Böck
 
Default Some ideas on the licensing issue

Am Donnerstag 07 Januar 2010 schrieb Ulrich Mueller:
> >>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:
> >
> > I think the GPL-compatible set makes barely sense. The problem with
> > it is, as stated by various people, that we have different GPLs.
> > GPL2 and 3 are incompatible, so it doesn't mean "GPL-compatible" are
> > all licenses that can be mixed together. I don't know how/if we
> > should resolve this.
>
> So what do you suggest? Remove "GPL-COMPATIBLE" and move everything
> into "FSF-APPROVED"?

Yeah, I think that's reasonable.

I'm currently in contact with FSF-people so I hope we can clarify if all the
"looks free but is not mentioned on the FSF homepage"-licenses.

> > For documentation, we may want to have another set? I'll add one
> > with the well known free documentation licenses (FDL, CC by, cc
> > by-sa). If we decide to go some other way, we can throw it away, but
> > I wanted to start something ;-)
>
> Is your "FREE-DOCUMENTS" meant to include things like fonts, or do we
> need another group for them?

I was unsure about that but I'd say yes unless we want to complicate things
more than neccessary. I already put in one font license.

--
Hanno Böck Blog: http://www.hboeck.de/
GPG: 3DBD3B20 Jabber/Mail: hanno@hboeck.de
 
Old 01-09-2010, 06:52 PM
Ulrich Mueller
 
Default Some ideas on the licensing issue

>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:

>> So what do you suggest? Remove "GPL-COMPATIBLE" and move everything
>> into "FSF-APPROVED"?

> Yeah, I think that's reasonable.

I've just learned that GLEP 23 explicitly requires GPL-COMPATIBLE to
be present.

The GLEP would also require a NON-MUST-HAVE-READ group:
"NON-MUST-HAVE-READ licenses are those that don't require manual
acceptance for to be considered legally binding." Whatever that means.

Ulrich
 
Old 01-09-2010, 07:28 PM
"Robin H. Johnson"
 
Default Some ideas on the licensing issue

On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 08:52:10PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Hanno Böck wrote:
> >> So what do you suggest? Remove "GPL-COMPATIBLE" and move everything
> >> into "FSF-APPROVED"?
>
> > Yeah, I think that's reasonable.
>
> I've just learned that GLEP 23 explicitly requires GPL-COMPATIBLE to
> be present.
>
> The GLEP would also require a NON-MUST-HAVE-READ group:
> "NON-MUST-HAVE-READ licenses are those that don't require manual
> acceptance for to be considered legally binding." Whatever that means.
Some licenses (eg some in @EULA) require explicit acceptance of the
license.

@NON-MUST-HAVE-READ was supposed to be all licenses that you agree to
merely by using any material under them.

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:25 PM.

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