Re: drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?
(Resending a similar mail to d-legal because my previous attempt was
rejected by the OSI listserver.)
Markus Frosch writes ("drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?"):
> I, myself, would consider the license non-free in terms of DFSG, due to this
> paragraph:
>
> > 3.4) Without prior written consent of LICENSOR or an authorized partner,
> > LICENSEE is not allowed to:
> > [...]
> > b) provide commercial turn-key solutions based on the LICENSED
> >SOFTWARE or commercial services for the LICENSED SOFTWARE or
> >its modifications to any third party (e.g. software support or
> >trainings).
>
> What's your opinion about that clause?
Wow. That's horrible. This is definitely unacceptable for Debian.
(I haven't read the rest of the licence. It's been suggested on
debian-legal that this is far from the only serious problem.)
> > Is DRBD Manage open source software?
> >
> > Yes, the license meets OSI?^@^Ys Open Source Definition, it
> > conforms to Debian?^@^Ys social contract, it conforms to
> > Ubuntu?^@^Ys licensing policy and it is within Launchpad?^@^Ys
> > licensing conditions.
This is clearly false as regards acceptability to Debian.
I doubt very much that they have talked to OSI or to Ubuntu.
I have CC'd one of the OSI lists and legal@canonical.
As the three institutions whose names are being taken in vain, I think
it would be good for us to have a coordinated response.
Regards,
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?
> Markus Frosch writes ("drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?"):
>> I, myself, would consider the license non-free in terms of DFSG, due to this
>> paragraph:
>>
>> > 3.4) Without prior written consent of LICENSOR or an authorized partner,
>> > LICENSEE is not allowed to:
>> > [...]
>> > b) provide commercial turn-key solutions based on the LICENSED
>> >SOFTWARE or commercial services for the LICENSED SOFTWARE or
>> >its modifications to any third party (e.g. software support or
>> >trainings).
>>
>> What's your opinion about that clause?
>
> Wow. That's horrible. This is definitely unacceptable for Debian.
>
> (I haven't read the rest of the licence. It's been suggested on
> debian-legal that this is far from the only serious problem.)
>
>> > Is DRBD Manage open source software?
>> >
>> > Yes, the license meets OSI?^@^Ys Open Source Definition, it
>> > conforms to Debian?^@^Ys social contract, it conforms to
>> > Ubuntu?^@^Ys licensing policy and it is within Launchpad?^@^Ys
>> > licensing conditions.
>
> This is clearly false as regards acceptability to Debian.
> I doubt very much that they have talked to OSI or to Ubuntu.
>
> I have CC'd one of the OSI lists. I couldn't find an appropriate list
> for Ubuntu. Maybe someone else here knows how to bring this to the
> appropriate Ubuntu people's attention ?
le...@canonical.com, I guess. That is not a mailing list, however.
Re: drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?
Markus Frosch writes ("drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?"):
> I, myself, would consider the license non-free in terms of DFSG, due to this
> paragraph:
>
> > 3.4) Without prior written consent of LICENSOR or an authorized partner,
> > LICENSEE is not allowed to:
> > [...]
> > b) provide commercial turn-key solutions based on the LICENSED
> >SOFTWARE or commercial services for the LICENSED SOFTWARE or
> >its modifications to any third party (e.g. software support or
> >trainings).
>
> What's your opinion about that clause?
Wow. That's horrible. This is definitely unacceptable for Debian.
(I haven't read the rest of the licence. It's been suggested on
debian-legal that this is far from the only serious problem.)
> > Is DRBD Manage open source software?
> >
> > Yes, the license meets OSI?^@^Ys Open Source Definition, it
> > conforms to Debian?^@^Ys social contract, it conforms to
> > Ubuntu?^@^Ys licensing policy and it is within Launchpad?^@^Ys
> > licensing conditions.
This is clearly false as regards acceptability to Debian.
I doubt very much that they have talked to OSI or to Ubuntu.
I have CC'd one of the OSI lists. I couldn't find an appropriate list
for Ubuntu. Maybe someone else here knows how to bring this to the
appropriate Ubuntu people's attention ?
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?
Am Freitag, den 09.12.2016, 14:08 +0100 schrieb Markus Frosch: > Hey legal people, > The DRBD upstream switched the license for one of their components > "drbdmanage" from GPL to a special license (non-standard). > > I'm thinking about it would fit DFSG. > > Disclaimer: The software in particular is not available in Debian > currently. > > License Name: DRBD MANAGE END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT > Full Text:[1] (also attached) > > The license itself seems to be shaped around DFSG and other OSS > licenses. > > Linbit even states in their FAQ [2] that: > > > Is DRBD Manage open source software? > > > > Yes, the license meets OSI’s Open Source Definition, it conforms > > to Debian’s > > social contract, it conforms to Ubuntu’s licensing policy and it is > > within > > Launchpad’s licensing conditions. Oouch. Can we ask them to stop claiming that, at least the Debian part? IANAL but is the usage of "Debian" here also a trademark violation, according to https://www.debian.org/trademark "You can NEVER use" §1 section? (CC'ing the trademark team) > I, myself, would consider the license non-free in terms of DFSG, due > to this paragraph: Not only this paragaph, I saw more WTFs among them... (e.g. if you make modifications you have to waive all rights, even your copyright -> §3.3..) > > 3.4) Without prior written consent of LICENSOR or an authorized > > partner, > > LICENSEE is not allowed to: > > [...] > > b) provide commercial turn-key solutions based on the LICENSED > > SOFTWARE or > > commercial services for the LICENSED SOFTWARE or its > > modifications to any > > third party (e.g. software support or trainings). > > What's your opinion about that clause? > Regards > Markus Frosch > > [1] http://git.linbit.com/drbdmanage.git/blob/HEAD:/COPYING > [2] https://www.linbit.com/en/drbd-manage-faq/ > -- tobi
Re: drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?
On 14516 March 1977, Markus Frosch wrote: > What's your opinion about that clause? non-free -- bye, Joerg
drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?
Hey legal people, The DRBD upstream switched the license for one of their components "drbdmanage" from GPL to a special license (non-standard). I'm thinking about it would fit DFSG. Disclaimer: The software in particular is not available in Debian currently. License Name: DRBD MANAGE END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT Full Text:[1] (also attached) The license itself seems to be shaped around DFSG and other OSS licenses. Linbit even states in their FAQ [2] that: > Is DRBD Manage open source software? > > Yes, the license meets OSI’s Open Source Definition, it conforms to Debian’s > social contract, it conforms to Ubuntu’s licensing policy and it is within > Launchpad’s licensing conditions. I, myself, would consider the license non-free in terms of DFSG, due to this paragraph: > 3.4) Without prior written consent of LICENSOR or an authorized partner, > LICENSEE is not allowed to: > [...] > b) provide commercial turn-key solutions based on the LICENSED SOFTWARE or >commercial services for the LICENSED SOFTWARE or its modifications to any >third party (e.g. software support or trainings). What's your opinion about that clause? Regards Markus Frosch [1] http://git.linbit.com/drbdmanage.git/blob/HEAD:/COPYING [2] https://www.linbit.com/en/drbd-manage-faq/ -- mar...@lazyfrosch.de / lazyfro...@debian.org http://www.lazyfrosch.de DRBD MANAGE END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT OCTOBER 28, 2016 PLEASE READ THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY. BY USING THE SOFTWARE DRBD MANAGE YOU ACCEPT ALL TERMS OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE. 1.) DEFINITIONS 1.1) LICENSOR: LINBIT HA Solutions GmbH, Stiegergasse 18, 1150 Wien, Austria. 1.2) LICENSEE: The user of DRBD Manage under this License Agreement. 1.3) LICENSED SOFTWARE: The Software DRBD Manage in source code and object code form including all executable programs. 1.4) DOCUMENTATION: The DRBD Users' Guide, e-mails and other explanatory materials accompanying the LICENSED SOFTWARE in printed or electronic form. 2.) OWNERSHIP / INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS LICENSEE acknowledges that ownership and all intellectual property rights related to the LICENSED SOFTWARE and to the DOCUMENTATION, including patents, copyright, trademarks, company or trade secrets, remain with the LICENSOR. LICENSEE promises to keep and not to modify the copyright notices of the LICENSOR. 3.) SCOPE OF LICENSE 3.1) Provided LICENSEE accepts all terms of this License Agreement, LICENSEE is granted a non-exclusive right to use the LICENSED SOFTWARE, which means LICENSEE may use the software for redistribution to an unrestricted number of users and for an unrestricted number of computer systems, as well as use the accompanying DOCUMENTATION, as follows: a) The LICENSEE is allowed to redistribute the LICENSED SOFTWARE and/or distribute software builds from modified source code under exactly the same terms of this License Agreement. The LICENSEE is entitled to sell or give away the software alone, or as part of an aggregate software distribution, in either source code or compiled form. The LICENSOR will not charge license fees or royalty payments or any other fee for this redistribution, distribution or modification. b) The license granted to the LICENSEE does not include any discrimination against persons, groups or against fields of endeavor and does not restrict users from using the software for a particular field of endeavour - a business for example (eg. there is no restriction to distribute the LICENSED SOFTWARE as "free for non-commercial use"). c) The LICENSED SOFTWARE must not be distributed under a license specific to a certain program or software package. The rights attached to the software must not depend on the program being part of a specific software system or package. d) The LICENSED SOFTWARE does not contaminate other software licenses. The license does not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with it. For example, the LICENSE must not insist that all other programs distributed along with the LICENSED SOFTWARE be free software. e) Source modifications of the LICENSED SOFTWARE must be distributed as patches. The LICENSED SOFTWARE and modifications to the software must be distributed separately, so that third parties always have a copy of the pristine code. However, the license explicitly permits distribution of software built from modified source code. 3.2) Without prior written consent of LICENSOR or an authorized partner, LICENSEE may modify the source code and use the modified version of the LICENSED SOFTWARE as specified under section 3.1 as long as the LICENSEE provides to the LICENSOR and third parties exactly the same rights to the modified source code and modified version as the LICENSOR does to the LICENSEE. The LICENSOR and third parties can exercise their rights to this software without having to pay for the privilege, and can pass these
