I'd like to package up Maia Mailguard, and the license appears to be original BSD (advertising clause included) with a branding extension added. Thoughts?
http://www.maiamailguard.org/license.php
"JW" == Jarod Wilson jwilson@redhat.com writes:
JW> I'd like to package up Maia Mailguard, and the license appears to JW> be original BSD (advertising clause included) with a branding JW> extension added. Thoughts?
In a way it's sort of like the GFDL with its invariant section. I personally think that kind of thing renders the software "non-free", but I'm not a lawyer.
See also http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00178.html
- J<
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 15:09 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"JW" == Jarod Wilson jwilson@redhat.com writes:
JW> I'd like to package up Maia Mailguard, and the license appears to JW> be original BSD (advertising clause included) with a branding JW> extension added. Thoughts?
In a way it's sort of like the GFDL with its invariant section. I personally think that kind of thing renders the software "non-free", but I'm not a lawyer.
Not sure if that license is free, to me it stinks, but in any case the GFDL is a Documentation License, not a Software License, let's keep apples to apples comparisons, and let's try to not get infected by the Debian disease about defining what is software.
Simo.
"SS" == Simo Sorce ssorce@redhat.com writes:
SS> Not sure if that license is free, to me it stinks, but in any case SS> the GFDL is a Documentation License, not a Software License,
I haven't written otherwise.
SS> let's keep apples to apples comparisons, and let's try to not get SS> infected by the Debian disease about defining what is software.
We frequently make use of research that the Debian folks have done, and anything which is not acceptable to them bears strong scrutiny before we consider it acceptable for Fedora. If you wish to characterize their efforts as some sort of illness then that's your business but please concentrate on reasonable discourse here.
- J<
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"SS" == Simo Sorce ssorce@redhat.com writes:
SS> Not sure if that license is free, to me it stinks, but in any case SS> the GFDL is a Documentation License, not a Software License,
I haven't written otherwise.
SS> let's keep apples to apples comparisons, and let's try to not get SS> infected by the Debian disease about defining what is software.
We frequently make use of research that the Debian folks have done, and anything which is not acceptable to them bears strong scrutiny before we consider it acceptable for Fedora. If you wish to characterize their efforts as some sort of illness then that's your business but please concentrate on reasonable discourse here.
Yeah, I figured section 4 might be an issue...
I'm definitely not a lawyer either, and the license isn't optimal, but what exactly stops us from packaging it? (Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand). We'd be packaging it in a way that satisfies 4a, and users are welcome to modify it once its installed on their system. Or is the fact that you couldn't change the branding for redistribution if you wanted to enough to give it the boot?
Jarod Wilson wrote:
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> "SS" == Simo Sorce ssorce@redhat.com writes:
SS> Not sure if that license is free, to me it stinks, but in any case SS> the GFDL is a Documentation License, not a Software License,
I haven't written otherwise.
SS> let's keep apples to apples comparisons, and let's try to not get SS> infected by the Debian disease about defining what is software.
We frequently make use of research that the Debian folks have done, and anything which is not acceptable to them bears strong scrutiny before we consider it acceptable for Fedora. If you wish to characterize their efforts as some sort of illness then that's your business but please concentrate on reasonable discourse here.
Yeah, I figured section 4 might be an issue...
I'm definitely not a lawyer either, and the license isn't optimal, but what exactly stops us from packaging it? (Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand). We'd be packaging it in a way that satisfies 4a, and users are welcome to modify it once its installed on their system. Or is the fact that you couldn't change the branding for redistribution if you wanted to enough to give it the boot?
Another thing to consider... How different is this from the Firefox case?
"JW" == Jarod Wilson jwilson@redhat.com writes:
JW> Another thing to consider... How different is this from the JW> Firefox case?
Firefox has no requirement that it carry any display or notice as far as I know. In fact, Debian removes these completely. The license in question explicitly prohibits this. It seems to be in fact the polar opposite from the Firefox case.
- J<
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"JW" == Jarod Wilson jwilson@redhat.com writes:
JW> Another thing to consider... How different is this from the JW> Firefox case?
Firefox has no requirement that it carry any display or notice as far as I know. In fact, Debian removes these completely. The license in question explicitly prohibits this. It seems to be in fact the polar opposite from the Firefox case.
I think I was somehow abstractly attempting to tie them together via "mostly free, but has some sort of restriction relating to included graphics, which is what made debian give it the boot". Or something. Okay, just ignore that thought.
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 15:45 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
I'd like to package up Maia Mailguard, and the license appears to be original BSD (advertising clause included) with a branding extension added. Thoughts?
Sent to the FSF for feedback. We'll see what they say.
~spot
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 19:19 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 15:45 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
I'd like to package up Maia Mailguard, and the license appears to be original BSD (advertising clause included) with a branding extension added. Thoughts?
Sent to the FSF for feedback. We'll see what they say.
The FSF says:
The branding constitutes a restriction on people's rights to adapt the software for their own purposes. It doesn't just affect source comments or documentation (like the advertising clause does). So I believe this makes it nonfree.
I can submit it to the OSI for approval, but I'm less and less comfortable with it at this time.
~spot
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 03:45:01PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
I'd like to package up Maia Mailguard, and the license appears to be original BSD (advertising clause included) with a branding extension added. Thoughts?
Isn't Maia a fork of amavisd-new? If so, how can its license be anything other than than GPL?
Steve
Steven Pritchard wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 03:45:01PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
I'd like to package up Maia Mailguard, and the license appears to be original BSD (advertising clause included) with a branding extension added. Thoughts?
Isn't Maia a fork of amavisd-new?
Pretty much, yeah.
If so, how can its license be anything other than than GPL?
Good question... I'll raise that with the authors.
On Sun, 2007-04-01 at 02:28 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Steven Pritchard wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 03:45:01PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
I'd like to package up Maia Mailguard, and the license appears to be original BSD (advertising clause included) with a branding extension added. Thoughts?
Isn't Maia a fork of amavisd-new?
Pretty much, yeah.
If so, how can its license be anything other than than GPL?
I don't think amavisd-new had any web interface. That part of the license may apply only to the web interface.
Good question... I'll raise that with the authors.
Yes, and it would be nice if the author would release it under pure GPL, or maybe the Affero GPL ?
Simo Sorce wrote:
On Sun, 2007-04-01 at 02:28 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Steven Pritchard wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 03:45:01PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
I'd like to package up Maia Mailguard, and the license appears to be original BSD (advertising clause included) with a branding extension added. Thoughts?
Isn't Maia a fork of amavisd-new?
Pretty much, yeah.
If so, how can its license be anything other than than GPL?
I don't think amavisd-new had any web interface. That part of the license may apply only to the web interface.
That is indeed the case.
Good question... I'll raise that with the authors.
Yes, and it would be nice if the author would release it under pure GPL, or maybe the Affero GPL ?
That would be a "not likely". :)
http://www.renaissoft.com/pipermail/maia-users/2007-January/008699.html
Seems this won't fly as an official Fedora package. No biggie, the Maia folks have offered to host it or link to it or whatever, wherever it winds up.
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jarod Wilson -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Simo Sorce -
Steven Pritchard -
Tom Callaway