Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement
Thanks Ian for clarifying. I am discussing with OpenPilot-upstream possible solutions to solve the issue. The package without firmware is not quite useful. So we will try to provide an option to download it from external site, if it is technically and legally possible. Best regards Anton 2015-04-15 15:43 GMT+02:00 Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk: Paul Wise writes (Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement): On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Anton Gladky wrote: non-transferable (whether by assignment or otherwise unless expressly authorized by ST) non sub- licensable Does this mean that people getting a copy of the software from Debian do not automatically receive the same license as Debian? No, it means that _Debian itself_ is not empowered to sublicence. ST's licence document doesn't limit itself to distribution directly from or by ST, and is a public licence (addressed to all readers). See also (iv) in the licence text. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CALF6qJmL3G61tRvzjBsq3UX9NoWr=x47vDBd=cfnlskxosk...@mail.gmail.com
Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement
Anton Gladky writes (Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement): Thanks Ian for clarifying. I am discussing with OpenPilot-upstream possible solutions to solve the issue. The package without firmware is not quite useful. All of the supported hardware has chips which require the problematic ST code ? How unfortunate. So we will try to provide an option to download it from external site, if it is technically and legally possible. From Debian's point of view, that would mean your package couldn't be in main, anyway. To be honest, if the package is not useful without the non-free firmware, you might as well put the whole thing in non-free. If you split it up the the non-ST parts could be contrib. IMO it would be better to have the whole thing in non-free, than to have an automatic downloader in contrib. Automatic downloaders are very much a last resort. Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21808.17679.131274.346...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement
Paul Wise writes (Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement): On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Anton Gladky wrote: non-transferable (whether by assignment or otherwise unless expressly authorized by ST) non sub- licensable Does this mean that people getting a copy of the software from Debian do not automatically receive the same license as Debian? No, it means that _Debian itself_ is not empowered to sublicence. ST's licence document doesn't limit itself to distribution directly from or by ST, and is a public licence (addressed to all readers). See also (iv) in the licence text. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21806.27423.251132.64...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement
Anton Gladky writes (MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement): Particularly, there is a 3rd-party code from hardware-manufacturer, which is licensed under their own MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement V2 license [2]. ... At the first look, it is a free one: STMicroelectronics (“ST”) grants You a non-exclusive, worldwide, non-transferable (whether by assignment or otherwise unless expressly authorized by ST) non sub- licensable, revocable, royalty-free limited license of the Licensed Software to: (i) make copies, prepare derivative works of the source code version of the Licensed Software for the sole and exclusive purpose of developing versions of such Licensed Software only for use within the Product; The problem here is `only for use within the Product'. In the licence agreement restricts a `Product' to be one where the `Licensed Software' executes only on ST's chips. That makes this software non-free. If you strip this code out of the package, is the remaining thing useable ? I think that it would be right and proper to throw out the support for ST Microelectronics's hardware until such time as they offer a Free licence for the support code. IMO the licence does leave us able to distribute the ST code in non-free. But please do not relegate the whole package to non-free unless it's useless without the ST code. Unless otherwise explicitly stated in this Agreement, You may not sell, assign, sublicense, lease, rent or otherwise distribute the Licensed Software for commercial purposes, in whole or in part. Does it mean, that this license does not permit the commercial use and is automatically dfsg-incompatible? There are some other stuff in Restriction which is probably also makes the license non-free. Yes. If it is so, is it OK to put the package into a non-free section or the license is too bad even for that? I disagree with the other respondents who say the licence is too bad for non-free. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21806.26994.251328.74...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement
Simon McVittie writes (Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement): Only the ftp-masters can give you a canonical yes or no on what legal risk they are prepared to accept for non-free (or for that matter, for contrib or main), but they'd almost certainly want to see the other stuff in Restriction before saying anything. The `other restrictions' are in the PDF to which the OP linked. The only one which is troublesome is that if ST think their licence has been violated (for example by their software being used or modified for use with non-ST hardware), ST may `request certification as to whether such unauthorized use or distribution has occurred' and we then have to `cooperate ... and assist' to find out whether there has been such use and `take appropriate steps to remedy' Those terms are there because in most situations, ST wouldn't have visiblity of the production processes for potentially infringing proprietary software. For Debian we could comply with these requirements simply by pointing ST to our public archive, bug system, etc., to show whether anyone related to Debian had infringed, and (if necessary) by dropping the software. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21806.27321.948327.424...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement
Hi, thanks Simon and Paul for answers. It looks like really almost impossible to put files with those license even into the non-free. Best regards Anton 2015-04-15 3:07 GMT+02:00 Paul Wise p...@debian.org: On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Anton Gladky wrote: non-transferable (whether by assignment or otherwise unless expressly authorized by ST) non sub- licensable Does this mean that people getting a copy of the software from Debian do not automatically receive the same license as Debian? -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CALF6qJmNMJMScEN788wGOQYnYdjjySEDM1iL3nw=jsf80x4...@mail.gmail.com
Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Anton Gladky wrote: non-transferable (whether by assignment or otherwise unless expressly authorized by ST) non sub- licensable Does this mean that people getting a copy of the software from Debian do not automatically receive the same license as Debian? -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6GkGMgUrWX6YJ=V6pJzy=hstosr_--kdqiywvn6zb1...@mail.gmail.com
MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement
Dear subscribers of debian-legal list, I am working now on packaging the software OpenPilot [1]. It is a platform for multirotors, helicopters and other vehicles and licensed mostly under GPLv3 license. Almost all technical questions are solved and the package became functional, I started to fill d/copyright before uploading and found some files, which are probably make the package non-free. Particularly, there is a 3rd-party code from hardware-manufacturer, which is licensed under their own MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement V2 license [2]. [1] https://www.openpilot.org [2] http://www.st.com/software_license_agreement_liberty_v2 At the first look, it is a free one: STMicroelectronics (“ST”) grants You a non-exclusive, worldwide, non-transferable (whether by assignment or otherwise unless expressly authorized by ST) non sub- licensable, revocable, royalty-free limited license of the Licensed Software to: (i) make copies, prepare derivative works of the source code version of the Licensed Software for the sole and exclusive purpose of developing versions of such Licensed Software only for use within the Product; (ii) make copies, prepare derivative works of the object code versions of the Licensed Software for the sole purpose of designing, developing and manufacturing the Products; (iii) make copies, prepare derivative works of the documentation part of the Licensed Software (including non confidential comments from source code files if applicable), for the sole purpose of providing documentation for the Product and its usage. (iv) make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import and export or otherwise distribute Products also through multiple tiers. But there is a restriction, which I do not clearly understand: Unless otherwise explicitly stated in this Agreement, You may not sell, assign, sublicense, lease, rent or otherwise distribute the Licensed Software for commercial purposes, in whole or in part. Does it mean, that this license does not permit the commercial use and is automatically dfsg-incompatible? There are some other stuff in Restriction which is probably also makes the license non-free. If it is so, is it OK to put the package into a non-free section or the license is too bad even for that? Please, CC me on replies. Thank you Anton -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CALF6qJkzUwRx635LzbT=HZ=sn_bkufaftqaaaft_3deohcy...@mail.gmail.com
Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement
On 14/04/15 19:25, Anton Gladky wrote: STMicroelectronics (“ST”) grants You a [...] revocable, [...] license As far as I can see, ST can revoke this license at any time, i.e. they can say no, we don't want to allow that any more, any further distribution of our software is copyright infringement. That might well be a showstopper even for non-free. (i) make copies, prepare derivative works [...] for the sole and exclusive purpose of developing versions of such Licensed Software only for use within the Product; What is the Product? Most legal documents have some section where they define abbreviated terms like the Product so that they don't have to repeat the definition everywhere. If so, the document can't be understood without that section. This looks like discrimination against fields of endeavor (DFSG §6), unless the Product is so broadly defined that it covers anything and everything. (ii), (iii) are similar. Unless otherwise explicitly stated in this Agreement, You may not sell, assign, sublicense, lease, rent or otherwise distribute the Licensed Software for commercial purposes, in whole or in part. They have said that you may make copies and prepare derivative works for use within the Product, and that you can sell them. I think that's enough to be explicitly stating, so those parts of this clause might not apply to the Product, whatever that is. They have not said you can lease or rent the Product, unless that's considered to be included in otherwise distribute. There are some other stuff in Restriction which is probably also makes the license non-free. If it is so, is it OK to put the package into a non-free section or the license is too bad even for that? Only the ftp-masters can give you a canonical yes or no on what legal risk they are prepared to accept for non-free (or for that matter, for contrib or main), but they'd almost certainly want to see the other stuff in Restriction before saying anything. S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/552d6562.4050...@debian.org
Re: MCD-ST Liberty SW License Agreement
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:07:14 +0100 Simon McVittie s...@debian.org wrote: On 14/04/15 19:25, Anton Gladky wrote: STMicroelectronics (“ST”) grants You a [...] revocable, [...] license As far as I can see, ST can revoke this license at any time, i.e. they can say no, we don't want to allow that any more, any further distribution of our software is copyright infringement. That might well be a showstopper even for non-free. But then, wouldn't the package just be removed from non-free in the case that the license was revoked? Hmm... but then, on the other hand, the package would also have to be removed from snapshot.d.o, and perhaps other locations. I guess it would depend on how hard it would be for Debian to actually comply with such a request. pgpe5h5HPOdWz.pgp Description: PGP signature
