Re: BSD license with Mozilla-style name clause

[Florian Weimer]

* Luke Faraone:

> Would retitling the package "carol" or "wonderland" be sufficient to
> make the package DFSG-free?

There is ample precedent that the license is DFSG-compliant as such.
If you want to be completely sure, you could ask the copyright holder
if it is acceptable to include it in Debian, with the usual set of
changes that this entails.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: BSD license with Mozilla-style name clause

[Anthony W. Youngman]

In message <20090108232546.5a3d9873@firenze.linux.it>, Francesco 
Poli  writes

But anyway, there *has* to be a trademark to begin with, in order for
trademark laws to apply.
I don't know whether "Alice" is a trademark or is eligible to become
one.


I don't know about US law, but certainly in the UK, trademark law is a 
bit like copyright law - using a name automatically creates a 
trademark(TM).


Note I wrote (TM), and *not* (R). I'm planning to have another go at 
writing a "free Pick" implementation when I can find the time, and right 
from the get-go I will be referring to it as "MaVen (TM)". That 
INSTANTLY gives me trademark rights.


The difference between (TM) and (R) is that (R) means registered, and as 
such it's a lot easier to enforce (a bit like you need to register 
copyrights in the US if you want to get decent damages for 
infringement). But if I call my product "MaVen (TM)" it makes it a lot 
easier for me to defend myself in a trademark fight against someone just 
using "Maven", and if I can show they named their product after mine, I 
would have pretty much the same redress as if I had actually registered 
the trademark. The main effect of not registering the trademark there 
simply makes the burden of proof on me somewhat higher.


(Oh - and if you're thinking of the Windows(r)/Lindows fiasco, MS would 
have been able to sue Lindows for "naming their product with intent to 
cause confusion with Windows" even if they didn't have a registered 
trademark. They'd probably have lost on the grounds confusion was 
unlikely, but they'd've had a case.)


Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: BSD license with Mozilla-style name clause

[Francesco Poli]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:43:41 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote:

> Le mercredi 07 janvier 2009 à 23:19 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > > I think it would also be enough to obtain a permission from the authors
> > > to call Debian modified versions "Alice", as long as renaming it is easy
> > > otherwise. We have allowed such things in the past.
> > 
> > I don't think the situation is crystal clear.
> 
> I don’t think either, but you are really nitpicking too much.

Maybe...  :)

> So you
> can’t call a derived version FreeAlice nor Alice? Who cares?

*I* care, as I think the freedom to create and distribute derivative
works is a very important one (DFSG#3).  Restricting the naming of
derivative works is allowed by DFSG#4 (as a compromise!) in a somewhat
narrow way: it is considered acceptable when the license forbids
derivatives to carry the same name or version number as the original
work.
Forbidding an entire infinite set of names (any name having "Alice" as a
substring) goes well beyond what is considered acceptable by DFSG#4,
actually infinitely beyond...

> The same
> goes with trademarks of several packages we distribute.

Default trademark rules (the ones you get *in your jurisdiction*, when
there's a trademark and no explicit trademark license/policy) are
possibly different, maybe stricter, or maybe more relaxed.

But anyway, there *has* to be a trademark to begin with, in order for
trademark laws to apply.
I don't know whether "Alice" is a trademark or is eligible to become
one.

> 
> Luke, if you are in touch with upstream, I think you could recommend
> them to remove this clause and replace it by a trademark policy on the
> "Alice" name. It is more efficient and more flexible at the same time.

Or even better, upstream could be recommended to completely remove
clause 3. (and clause 4., while we are at it...). 

In summary, my recommendation is adopting the 2-clause BSD license,
without any additional clause.


Once again: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.

-- 
 On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND
 "nano-documents" may lead you to my website...  
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4


pgpSw2ToyFB9T.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: BSD license with Mozilla-style name clause

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mercredi 07 janvier 2009 à 23:19 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > I think it would also be enough to obtain a permission from the authors
> > to call Debian modified versions "Alice", as long as renaming it is easy
> > otherwise. We have allowed such things in the past.
> 
> I don't think the situation is crystal clear.

I don’t think either, but you are really nitpicking too much. So you
can’t call a derived version FreeAlice nor Alice? Who cares? The same
goes with trademarks of several packages we distribute.

Luke, if you are in touch with upstream, I think you could recommend
them to remove this clause and replace it by a trademark policy on the
"Alice" name. It is more efficient and more flexible at the same time.

-- 
 .''`.
: :' :  We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `'   We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
  `-our own. Resistance is futile.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: BSD license with Mozilla-style name clause

[Francesco Poli]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:53:31 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote:

> Le mercredi 07 janvier 2009 à 09:25 -0500, Luke Faraone a écrit :
> > Hi, I'm interested in packaging Alice (RFP:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=500648), but it's
> > license  has naming
> > restrictions similar to Mozilla.

When asking debian-legal for a license analysis, please quote the full
license text in the body of your message, so that it is archived for
future reference.

What follows is the license text quoted verbatim:

| Copyright © 1999-2009, Carnegie Mellon University. All rights reserved.
| 
| Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
| modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
| met:
| 
|1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
| notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
|2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
| notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
| documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
|3. Products derived from the software may not be called "Alice", nor
| may "Alice" appear in their name, without prior written permission of
| Carnegie Mellon University.
|4. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
| software must display the following acknowledgement: "This product
| includes software developed by Carnegie Mellon University"
| 
| DISCLAIMER:
| THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
| OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
| MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND
| NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE
| LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION
| OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
| WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

This license is not normally referred to as a "BSD license".
It starts just as a 2-clause BSD license, but includes two additional
clauses (clause 3. and clause 4.).

Clause 4. is the so-called "obnoxious advertising clause" (OAC from
here in after), also found in the 4-clause BSD license.
The OAC is accepted by the Debian Project as DFSG-compliant, even
though it's usually recommended against (in the sense that authors are
strongly encouraged to avoid adopting licenses with the OAC).

Clause 3. is what I could call a "super-name-change" clause.
It starts as a name-change clause, but then goes beyond and forbids an
entire class of names for derived works (any name having "Alice" as a
substring).
This is overreaching, IMO, and makes the clause non-free, because it
goes beyond what is allowed (as a compromise!) by DFSG#4.
Please note that an almost identical clause is found in the PHP
license, and indeed I repeatedly stated my opinion that the PHP License
(up to version 3.01), fails to meet the DFSG.  However I failed to gain
consensus on debian-legal about the problem: other people seem to
disagree and/or don't seem to care much.
See my analysis of the license at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00272.html
for further details.
FTP-masters seem to accept PHP as DFSG-free (unfortunately).

> > 
> > Would retitling the package "carol" or "wonderland" be sufficient to
> > make the package DFSG-free?
> 
> Yes, it’s otherwise an old-style BSD license.
> 
> I think it would also be enough to obtain a permission from the authors
> to call Debian modified versions "Alice", as long as renaming it is easy
> otherwise. We have allowed such things in the past.

I don't think the situation is crystal clear.

The Debian Project is in the same waters with PHP: there's a package
named "php5" which includes a (possibly) modified version of PHP.  The
modifications are at least the ones necessary to package PHP and
integrate it with the Debian system, if any: package php5 may be
considered a derived product of PHP, perhaps.
Is calling it "php5" allowed by the PHP license?
Someone could nitpick that "php" != "PHP": OK, in that case
"alice" != "Alice"...
Otherwise, someone could claim that package php5 *is* PHP, rather than a
derived product, since the modifications are not enough to create a
derived product (?!?).  I am personally not much convinced, but
anyway...
Otherwise?


In summary, the license could possibly be considered acceptable by
FTP-masters (even though it should not, IMHO!!!), but it is not clear
to me how the Debian Project can avoid violating the license itself,
unless a different name is used for the package, as proposed...


N.B.: the above is my own personal opinion and my usual disclaimers
apply (IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP).

-- 
 On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND
 "nano-documents" may lead you to my website...  
. Francesco Poli .
 GnuP

Re: BSD license with Mozilla-style name clause

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mercredi 07 janvier 2009 à 09:25 -0500, Luke Faraone a écrit :
> Hi, I'm interested in packaging Alice (RFP:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=500648), but it's
> license  has naming
> restrictions similar to Mozilla.
> 
> Would retitling the package "carol" or "wonderland" be sufficient to
> make the package DFSG-free?

Yes, it’s otherwise an old-style BSD license.

I think it would also be enough to obtain a permission from the authors
to call Debian modified versions "Alice", as long as renaming it is easy
otherwise. We have allowed such things in the past. 

-- 
 .''`.
: :' :  We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `'   We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
  `-our own. Resistance is futile.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

BSD license with Mozilla-style name clause

[Luke Faraone]

Hi, I'm interested in packaging Alice (RFP:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=500648), but it's
license  has naming
restrictions similar to Mozilla.

Would retitling the package "carol" or "wonderland" be sufficient to
make the package DFSG-free?

Thanks,
Luke Faraone

PS: I'm not subscribed to the list, so please CC me when replying.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org