> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Carsten Munk
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 11:32 PM
> To: Zhu, Peter J
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [meego-packaging] Licensing on spec files
>
> 2010/11/22 Zhu, Peter J <[email protected]>:
> > Hi
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [email protected]
> >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carsten
> Munk
> >> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 3:42 PM
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> Subject: [meego-packaging] Licensing on spec files
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I've noticed we're getting more and more packages that has closed
> >> source licenses on the packaging itself. This is problematic as
> >> technically, we don't have rights to build those packages within MeeGo
> >> and probably even publish the source rpms on repo.meego.com and others
> >> to mirror our repos.
> >>
> > Give an example
>
> As an example of recently submitted packages (but not accepted) - if
> you read this license in the top of the spec file(s), it is clearly
> not open source.
>
> The content of the spec file, gst-plugins-va.spec:
> ================================================================
> ===
> # Copyright 2010 Intel Corporation All Rights Reserved.
> # The source code contained or described herein and all documents
> related to the source code ("Material") are owned by Intel Corporation
> or its suppliers or licensors. Title to the Material remains with
> Intel Corporation or its suppliers and licensors. The Material
> contains trade secrets and proprietary and confidential information of
> Intel or its suppliers and licensors. The Material is protected by
> worldwide copyright and trade secret laws and treaty provisions. No
> part of the Material may be used, copied, reproduced, modified,
> published, uploaded, posted, transmitted, distributed, or disclosed in
> any way without Intel's prior express written permission.
> #
> # No license under any patent, copyright, trade secret or other
> intellectual property right is granted to or conferred upon you by
> disclosure or delivery of the Materials, either expressly, by
> implication, inducement, estoppel or otherwise. Any license under such
> intellectual property rights must be express and approved by Intel in
> writing.
>
> Summary: GStreamer VA Plugin
> Name: gst-plugins-va
> Version: 0.10.5
> Release: 1
> Source: %{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
> License: LGPL v2.0
> Group: System Environment/Libraries
> BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root
> ExclusiveArch: %{ix86}
>
> as well as:
>
> The content of the spec file, mixvideo.spec:
> ================================================================
> ===
> # INTEL CONFIDENTIAL
> # Copyright 2009 Intel Corporation All Rights Reserved.
> # The source code contained or described herein and all documents
> related to the source code ("Material") are owned by Intel Corporation
> or its suppliers or licensors. Title to the Material remains with
> Intel Corporation or its suppliers and licensors. The Material
> contains trade secrets and proprietary and confidential information of
> Intel or its suppliers and licensors. The Material is protected by
> worldwide copyright and trade secret laws and treaty provisions. No
> part of the Material may be used, copied, reproduced, modified,
> published, uploaded, posted, transmitted, distributed, or disclosed in
> any way without Intel's prior express written permission.
> #
> # No license under any patent, copyright, trade secret or other
> intellectual property right is granted to or conferred upon you by
> disclosure or delivery of the Materials, either expressly, by
> implication, inducement, estoppel or otherwise. Any license under such
> intellectual property rights must be express and approved by Intel in
> writing.
>
> Summary: MIX Video
> Name: mixvideo
> Version: 0.1.24
>
I agree with you. It's not needed at all in spec file. And seem some stuff on
copyright. UMG is clarifying.
> >> I don't know what the policy should be - frankly, I'd either prefer
> >> 'no license' like most of our spec files, or a general statement that
> >> our packaging (not content) is open source.
> >>
> > What do you mean by "no license"?
>
> Right now our spec files are quite plain, with no license header in
> the top, like in:
>
> #specfile originally created for Fedora, modified for Moblin Linux
> Summary: Access control list utilities
> Name: acl
> Version: 2.2.49
> Release: 1
> BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> BuildRequires: libattr-devel >= 2.4.1
> BuildRequires: autoconf, libtool >= 1.5, gettext, gawk
> Source:
> http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases-noredirect/acl/acl-%{version}.src.
> tar.gz
> Patch0: acl-2.2.49-multilib.patch
> Patch1: acl-2.2.49-build.patch
> Patch6: acl-2.2.49-CVE-2009-4411.patch
>
> License: GPLv2
> Group: System/Base
> URL: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/
>
>
I can't agree with you more. We don't need that in spec file at all.
> >> Could distribution engineers/architects elaborate on this topic and
> >> set forth a policy?
>
> Given that some of our specs are big enough to be actually
> copyrightable, they should really contain a license header stating the
> license and copyright owner.. The principle is usually that by
> default, you do not have a license for a copyrighted work, it is
> granted to you through a license (like BSD licensing, GPL, or what's
> above as a Intel closed source license).
>
>
I think our focus is about package content itself ,not packaging.
> >>
> >> BR
> >> Carsten Munk
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> MeeGo-packaging mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging
> >
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-packaging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging
