Re: license issuse in qterm
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 03:56:56PM +0800, LI Daobing wrote: I am the maintainer of qterm and I am checking the license issue in qterm. qterm is release under GPL-2+ as a whole, and the source files are released under GPL-2+, LGPL-2.1+, BSD-2 and others. qterm/ssh/getput.h is released under following license[1]. And I don't know whether it's OK to distribute it as GPL-2+, or whether it fulfill DFSG, thanks. As Francesco wrote, this seems to be fine as far as the DFSG is concerned. About the GPL: As far as I am concerned, the code I have written for this software can be used freely for any purpose. Any derived versions of this software must be clearly marked as such, This is fine, the GPL requires it itself, so that should not make it incompatible. and if the derived work is incompatible with the protocol description in the RFC file, it must be called by a name other than ssh or Secure Shell. This may be a problem. However, to me it seems this just clarifies how he thinks about the use of his trademarks. They're probably not registered, but they still have some protection (assuming he is the right person to claim them). If he wants to use these names as trademarks, AFAIK he is allowed to. Looking at it that way, this statement really gives two licenses: one for the software, which is almost a disclaimer of copyright, and one for the trademarks, which has restrictions. AFAIK the GPL doesn't have a problem with this (that is, if a company puts its trademarked logo in GPL'd software, the GPL doesn't force the company to license the trademark to anyone). However, IANAL and I'm not at all sure if this is a proper way to look at things. I'd appreciate input from the list on it. Thanks, Bas Ps: please CC me on replies. -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: license issuse in qterm
On Jan 10, 2008 8:52 AM, Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and if the derived work is incompatible with the protocol description in the RFC file, it must be called by a name other than ssh or Secure Shell. This may be a problem. However, to me it seems this just clarifies how he thinks about the use of his trademarks. They're probably not registered, but they still have some protection (assuming he is the right person to claim them). If he wants to use these names as trademarks, AFAIK he is allowed to. I agree. The restriction relates to (probably unregistered) trade marks rather than copyright. It may be inconvenient in some circumstances, and could be expressed more clearly, but it's not non-free. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: license issuse in qterm
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:10:34 + John Halton wrote: On Jan 10, 2008 8:52 AM, Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and if the derived work is incompatible with the protocol description in the RFC file, it must be called by a name other than ssh or Secure Shell. This may be a problem. However, to me it seems this just clarifies how he thinks about the use of his trademarks. They're probably not registered, but they still have some protection (assuming he is the right person to claim them). If he wants to use these names as trademarks, AFAIK he is allowed to. I agree. The restriction relates to (probably unregistered) trade marks rather than copyright. It may be inconvenient in some circumstances, and could be expressed more clearly, but it's not non-free. IMO, the problem was not non-freeness, but GPL-compatibility. This is a name-change restriction, phrased as if it were a condition for getting copyright-related permissions (because it's placed directly under the copyright notice, inside what looks very much like a copyright permission notice), even though it's related to unregistered trademarks. Is such a restriction compatible with the GNU GPL? As usual: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpPeR6NQh1yV.pgp Description: PGP signature
license issuse in qterm
Hello, I am the maintainer of qterm and I am checking the license issue in qterm. qterm is release under GPL-2+ as a whole, and the source files are released under GPL-2+, LGPL-2.1+, BSD-2 and others. qterm/ssh/getput.h is released under following license[1]. And I don't know whether it's OK to distribute it as GPL-2+, or whether it fulfill DFSG, thanks. [1] $ cat qterm/ssh/getput.h | head -15 /* $OpenBSD: getput.h,v 1.8 2002/03/04 17:27:39 stevesk Exp $ */ /* * Author: Tatu Ylonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Copyright (c) 1995 Tatu Ylonen [EMAIL PROTECTED], Espoo, Finland *All rights reserved * Macros for storing and retrieving data in msb first and lsb first order. * * As far as I am concerned, the code I have written for this software * can be used freely for any purpose. Any derived versions of this * software must be clearly marked as such, and if the derived work is * incompatible with the protocol description in the RFC file, it must be * called by a name other than ssh or Secure Shell. */ -- Best Regards, LI Daobing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: license issuse in qterm
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 15:56:56 +0800 LI Daobing wrote: Hello, Hi! [...] qterm is release under GPL-2+ as a whole, and the source files are released under GPL-2+, LGPL-2.1+, BSD-2 and others. qterm/ssh/getput.h is released under following license[1]. And I don't know whether it's OK to distribute it as GPL-2+, or whether it fulfill DFSG, thanks. [1] $ cat qterm/ssh/getput.h | head -15 /* $OpenBSD: getput.h,v 1.8 2002/03/04 17:27:39 stevesk Exp $ */ /* * Author: Tatu Ylonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Copyright (c) 1995 Tatu Ylonen [EMAIL PROTECTED], Espoo, Finland *All rights reserved * Macros for storing and retrieving data in msb first and lsb first * order. * * As far as I am concerned, the code I have written for this software * can be used freely for any purpose. Any derived versions of this * software must be clearly marked as such, and if the derived work is * incompatible with the protocol description in the RFC file, it must * be called by a name other than ssh or Secure Shell. */ IMHO, this permission statement is vague and less than clear, but the intentions of the licensor seem to be compatible with the DFSG (taking DFSG#4 into account). Unfortunately, it seems to me that this permission statement is *not* compatible with the GNU GPL v2 or with the GNU GPL v3, due to the renaming constraint, which is a restriction not present in the GNU GPL v2 or v3 (nor allowed by GPLv3's Section 7). However, please note that the authority on GPL-compatibility is the FSF: you could contact them, if you are seeking an authoritative answer on the compatibility issue. If this file is part of qterm, I think that qterm is currently legally undistributable. Possible solutions are (in descending order of desirability): (a) contact Tatu Ylonen and persuade him to relicense the file in a GPL-compatible manner (b) find a GPL-compatible replacement for that file (c) contact *all* the copyright holders for the GPL'ed parts of qterm (and the libraries it links against!) and ask them to add an exception to their licensing that permits mixing (or linking) their code with that GPL-incompatible file [don't get upset if someone says no: personally, I would not allow anyone to mix my GPL'ed code with such a file...] Good luck! Important disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpEKfWGTp1Ei.pgp Description: PGP signature
