Clarify the "as-is" license?
 

>>>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, Rich Freeman wrote:

> Well, I can see legal problems any time you take a thousand things
> that all have a bunch of non-identical, informal licenses and treat
> them as the same. However, I don't think it is practical to do
> otherwise.

I agree. Creating hundreds of license files because of minor
variations in wording isn't useful.

> How about having an as-is-free and an as-is-nonfree. The easier
> thing on maintainers is to make one of those just "as-is," and if we
> want to make sure we check them all the better thing is to not do
> that. However, making a new as-is-free and treating anything as-is
> as not free is probably good enough. I don't think it is wise to do
> the reverse, even though that involves the least amount of work.

If we really decide to move things to a new license file, then I'd
rather avoid the name "as-is" because it is partly the reason for the
confusion. We should follow the OSI and SPDX [1] naming, unless there
are good reasons against it.

Concerning "as-is-nonfree", we already have the slightly more specific
"freedist" and "free-noncomm".

Ulrich

[1] <http://www.spdx.org/licenses/HPND>

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 

On 09/23/2012 02:04 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> If we really decide to move things to a new license file, then I'd
> rather avoid the name "as-is" because it is partly the reason for the
> confusion.

I agree on that. I saw it more than once that people use "as-is" for the
license, just because there is an "as is" clause.

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 

>>>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, hasufell wrote:

>> If we really decide to move things to a new license file, then I'd
>> rather avoid the name "as-is" because it is partly the reason for
>> the confusion.

> I agree on that. I saw it more than once that people use "as-is" for
> the license, just because there is an "as is" clause.

Right. Here's a small (but prominent) sample, namely all "as-is"
packages from the amd64 livecd and stage3:

- net-misc/ntp: "as-is" looks fine as main license, although some
parts of the code are under different licenses like GPL (but I
haven't checked in detail what gets installed).

- sys-apps/hdparm: "as-is" approximates it (but different wording).
Debian lists this package as "BSD".

- dev-util/yacc: "public-domain" according to README.

- media-libs/libpng: Comes with its own license. Free.

- media-libs/portaudio: "MIT"

- net-misc/openssh: BSD-ish, something like "BSD BSD-2 as-is BEER-WARE
public-domain" would be close.

- net-wireless/rfkill: "ISC"

- sys-apps/man-pages: Patchwork of files with different free
licenses. "as-is GPL-2+ BSD MIT LDP-1 public-domain" would cover
most of it.

While the above are at least free software (mostly BSD/MIT like),
I think that as-is is completely wrong for the following:

- app-admin/passook: Seems to have no license at all.

- net-wireless/zd1201-firmware: No license in tarball or on homepage.

- net-wireless/prism54-firmware: Ditto, and package is mirror
restricted. (How can it be on our install media then?)

Ulrich

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> - net-misc/ntp: "as-is" looks fine as main license, although some
> parts of the code are under different licenses like GPL (but I
> haven't checked in detail what gets installed).

Uh, if we're distributing the sources, and they contain GPL content,
then the only valid answer is GPL, or nomirror.

> While the above are at least free software (mostly BSD/MIT like),
> I think that as-is is completely wrong for the following:
>
> - app-admin/passook: Seems to have no license at all.
>
> - net-wireless/zd1201-firmware: No license in tarball or on homepage.
>
> - net-wireless/prism54-firmware: Ditto, and package is mirror
> restricted. (How can it be on our install media then?)
>

No license, no distribution, unless there is a declaration that it is
in the public domain, in which case that is the "license."

Thanks for checking!

Rich

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 

On Sun, 2012-09-23 at 23:37 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> - net-wireless/zd1201-firmware: No license in tarball or on homepage.

Ubuntu distributes it in their linux-firmware package with the following
LICENCE.zd1201 file:

The firmware was originally distributed by Zydas in their original driver package.

(You can still find it at http://linux-lc100020.sourceforge.net/ )
This package was distributed under both the GPL and MPL.
The firmware was in it in the form of a large array in a header file.

More precisely, if you download the old Zydas driver source from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-lc100020/files/%28OLD%29%20wlan-ng%20based%20driver/
the license terms are

The contents of this file are subject to the Mozilla Public
License Version 1.1 (the "License"); you may not use this file
except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of
the License at http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/

Software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS
IS" basis, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or
implied. See the License for the specific language governing
rights and limitations under the License.

Alternatively, the contents of this file may be used under the
terms of the GNU Public License version 2 (the "GPL"), in which
case the provisions of the GPL are applicable instead of the
above. If you wish to allow the use of your version of this file
only under the terms of the GPL and not to allow others to use
your version of this file under the MPL, indicate your decision
by deleting the provisions above and replace them with the notice
and other provisions required by the GPL. If you do not delete
the provisions above, a recipient may use your version of this
file under either the MPL or the GPL.

tl;dr: LICENSE="|| ( MPL-1.1 GPL-2 )"

-Alexandre.

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 

>>>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, Rich Freeman wrote:

>> - net-misc/ntp: "as-is" looks fine as main license, although some
>> parts of the code are under different licenses like GPL (but I
>> haven't checked in detail what gets installed).

> Uh, if we're distributing the sources, and they contain GPL content,
> then the only valid answer is GPL,

Unfortunately, it's not clear from our documentation if the LICENSE
variable applies to the source tarball or to the files that the
package installs on the user's system.

I tend to interpret it in the latter sense. To illustrate why, let's
look at sci-visualization/gnuplot-4.6.0 as an example:

LICENSE="gnuplot GPL-2 bitmap? ( free-noncomm )"

The bulk of the package is free software, distributed under the
gnuplot license or the GPL-2. However, there's an additional notice
with a no-sale clause in a single source file (src/bitmap.c).
If LICENSE applies to installed files, than we can disable the
functionality via USE=-bitmap and we're done.

However, if we say that LICENSE covers the source tarball, then we
either need to change it to an unconditional "gnuplot GPL-2
free-noncomm", which has the consequence that gnuplot is no longer
installable for users who have ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE".

Or, we must no longer distribute pristine source from upstream, but
repack them into a new tarball with bitmap.c removed. This would have
to be done for every release, which isn't feasible.

Similar reasoning applies to the various Linux kernel packages that
have LICENSE="GPL-2 !deblob? ( freedist )".

> or nomirror.

That's a different issue. In the case of RESTRICT="mirror" it is clear
that it applies to the sources that we distribute.

Ulrich

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Unfortunately, it's not clear from our documentation if the LICENSE
> variable applies to the source tarball or to the files that the
> package installs on the user's system.

Hmm, if these aren't the same, then more likely than not something is
wrong, but perhaps we'll have to confront this issue at some point.

>
> I tend to interpret it in the latter sense. To illustrate why, let's
> look at sci-visualization/gnuplot-4.6.0 as an example:
>
> LICENSE="gnuplot GPL-2 bitmap? ( free-noncomm )"
>
> The bulk of the package is free software, distributed under the
> gnuplot license or the GPL-2. However, there's an additional notice
> with a no-sale clause in a single source file (src/bitmap.c).
> If LICENSE applies to installed files, than we can disable the
> functionality via USE=-bitmap and we're done.

I guess we can get away with redistributing the source files each
under their respective license, since there is no "derived work" at
this point. However, any binaries built from such a thing would not
be redistributable. None of those licenses are GPL-compatible.

>
> However, if we say that LICENSE covers the source tarball, then we
> either need to change it to an unconditional "gnuplot GPL-2
> free-noncomm", which has the consequence that gnuplot is no longer
> installable for users who have ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE".

Here is the thing - suppose somebody runs a Gentoo mirror but has ads
on their page and is a commercial organization. They can't even
MIRROR that source legally because of the presence of that one file,
unless its license allows for-profit redistribution of the source.

>
> Or, we must no longer distribute pristine source from upstream, but
> repack them into a new tarball with bitmap.c removed. This would have
> to be done for every release, which isn't feasible.

Not necessarily the end of the world to be honest - how many things do
we have in the tree for which upstream only has an scm and no source
tarballs, so we have to roll our own on every release anyway due to
the prohibition on live scm packages being unmasked?

>
> Similar reasoning applies to the various Linux kernel packages that
> have LICENSE="GPL-2 !deblob? ( freedist )".
>
>> or nomirror.
>
> That's a different issue. In the case of RESTRICT="mirror" it is clear
> that it applies to the sources that we distribute.

I think the key is to make sure that the sources at least can be
distributed without getting anybody into trouble. If so we don't need
to restrict them. However, I don't think the final thing can be @FREE
- it isn't binary redistributable as the final built code isn't
licensed at all. We should point this out somehow.

Rich

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 23/09/12 08:10 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/23/2012 02:04 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> If we really decide to move things to a new license file, then
>> I'd rather avoid the name "as-is" because it is partly the reason
>> for the confusion.
>
> I agree on that. I saw it more than once that people use "as-is"
> for the license, just because there is an "as is" clause.
>


What about having some "snippet" licenses that could be amalgomated
as-needed for a package?

IE:
- -'as-is' would be the generic "as-is" statement
- -'free-non-commercial' would be a "free/unrestricted for
non-commercial use" statement
- -'free-unrestricted' would be a statement of more or less public domain

- -..etc...


..and then ebuilds can include the particular phrases that apply? ie,
LICENSE="(as-is free-non-commercial)" , essentially an
'assemble-your-own-license' from the snippets.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlBgWagACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDY2wD9EnVU9c1E6x W7o2pOhJbj8ocW
KHdXq0qiK156X4RFPCEBAJ4aNaEsF0cy615RLOjFm1r/vqNRcX5t91g+1psaNbiC
=gwvg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 

>>>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Rich Freeman wrote:

>> I tend to interpret it in the latter sense. To illustrate why, let's
>> look at sci-visualization/gnuplot-4.6.0 as an example:
>>
>> LICENSE="gnuplot GPL-2 bitmap? ( free-noncomm )"
>>
>> The bulk of the package is free software, distributed under the
>> gnuplot license or the GPL-2. However, there's an additional notice
>> with a no-sale clause in a single source file (src/bitmap.c).
>> If LICENSE applies to installed files, than we can disable the
>> functionality via USE=-bitmap and we're done.

> I guess we can get away with redistributing the source files each
> under their respective license, since there is no "derived work" at
> this point. However, any binaries built from such a thing would not
> be redistributable. None of those licenses are GPL-compatible.

This is not a problem here. Gnuplot itself is licensed under the
gnuplot license. The GPL licensed parts (e.g. Gnuplot mode for Emacs)
are not linked with it but installed separately. The GPL doesn't
forbid mere accumulation of things, so redistribution of the binary
isn't an issue.

> [...]

> Not necessarily the end of the world to be honest - how many things
> do we have in the tree for which upstream only has an scm and no
> source tarballs, so we have to roll our own on every release anyway
> due to the prohibition on live scm packages being unmasked?

Too many already, so we shouldn't add more when it's not necessary.

Ulrich


Mon Sep 24 15:30:01 2012
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-55023-tom=linux-archive.org@lists.gentoo.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
eagle542.startdedicated.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Original-To: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivered-To: tom-linux-archive.org@eagle542.startdedicated.com
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by eagle542.startdedicated.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C3C20E01FD
for <tom@linux-archive.org>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:20:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AC92D21C1B4;
Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:20:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Delivered-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 516D521C183
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:16:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.178.29] (e178066142.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.66.142])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: chithanh)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F3D633C45F
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:16:06 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <50605D0F.6060502@gentoo.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:15:59 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?=
<chithanh@gentoo.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Firefox/15.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.12.1
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify the "as-is" license?
References: <20574.60112.58705.360983@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <CAGfcS_mx4k9nR_WZCRtCFS9bVqcwGtzP2Gk8fzTomVmohD5F 7g@mail.gmail.com> <20574.64197.443629.447483@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <505EFC3B.30005@gentoo.org> <506059A8.5070705@gentoo.org>
In-Reply-To: <506059A8.5070705@gentoo.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Ian Stakenvicius schrieb:
> IE: - -'as-is' would be the generic "as-is" statement -
> -'free-non-commercial' would be a "free/unrestricted for
> non-commercial use" statement - -'free-unrestricted' would be a
> statement of more or less public domain
>
> - -..etc...

Why not directly use the FSF freedoms:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
your computing as you wish (freedom 1).
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
(freedom 3).

I think when combined appropriately, they nicely cover most of the
cases of current "as-is" packages.

> ..and then ebuilds can include the particular phrases that apply?
> ie, LICENSE="(as-is free-non-commercial)" , essentially an
> 'assemble-your-own-license' from the snippets.

We would maybe have to find a different operator for license
concatenation.


Best regards,
ChÃ*-Thanh Christopher Nguyá»?n

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 24/09/12 06:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, it's not clear from our documentation if the
>> LICENSE variable applies to the source tarball or to the files
>> that the package installs on the user's system.
>
> Hmm, if these aren't the same, then more likely than not something
> is wrong, but perhaps we'll have to confront this issue at some
> point.
>

After the debate on IRC that spawn the request to add GPL-2 to LICENSE
for all the packages that install init scripts, I would expect that
the LICENSE applies primarily to the installed-image but when
necessary/different would also apply to an upstream distfile and its
contents. However, it is safe to exclude licenses of patches,
contributed files, etc. that are stored in ${FILESDIR}.

Is this interpretation correct?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlBgXgoACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCxkgEAqydntc6k6Y cC3lce2aaxMUSy
csX3CfTcsKA04TDeZskA/30v+V6G1JXaTUocI4BszvzYqUvt6b+go3uJI+I0LUnn
=8B/x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----