Sisyphus repositório
Última atualização: 16 outubro 2019 | SRPMs: 17499 | Visitas: 15272231
en ru br
ALT Linux repositórios
S:0.9.3-alt5
5.0: 0.9.3-alt1
4.1: 0.9.3-alt1

Group :: Sistema/Bibliotecas
RPM: dumb

 Main   Changelog   Spec   Patches   Sources   Download   Gear   Bugs e FR  Repocop 

Message-ID: <46B75BC0.20002@hhs.nl>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:34:56 +0200
From: Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070615)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: entheh@users.sf.net
Subject: DUMB license
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

First let me start by introducing myself, I'm a linux enthousiast / developer
and a Fedora contributer. I maintain the dumb package for Fedora.

Currently we are doing a licensing audit of all our packages (what a pain)
because of the coming of GPL version 3.

During this audit the DUMB license has been held in the light too, and it has
been deemed a non free license by the lawyers :(

The problem are the clauses 4 and 5, the lawyers see this as non free "as it
imposes absurd restrictions of use on the users of the software". I noticed in
the Debina package that you've given Debian permission to distribute dumb with
the 4th and 5th clause removed from the license (and thus the 6th too as that
then no longer is necessary). If you could give us permission to do the same
that would be great.

A mail saying you will allow this is enough

Many Thanks & Regards,

Hans

---

Return-Path: <entheh@users.sf.net>
Received: from koko.hhs.nl ([145.52.2.16] verified)
by hhs.nl (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.6)
with ESMTP id 72785570 for j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:09:05 +0200
Received: from exim by koko.hhs.nl with spam-scanned (Exim 4.62)
(envelope-from <entheh@users.sf.net>)
id 1II70o-000124-RY
for j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:09:05 +0200
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on koko.hhs.nl
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=ham
version=3.1.8
Received: from exim (helo=koko)
by koko.hhs.nl with local-smtp (Exim 4.62)
(envelope-from <entheh@users.sf.net>)
id 1II70n-00011u-TJ
for j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:09:01 +0200
Received: from [212.74.100.53] (port=27938 helo=mk-filter-2-a-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com)
by koko.hhs.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.62)
(envelope-from <entheh@users.sf.net>)
id 1II70n-00011a-At
for j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:09:01 +0200
X-Trace: 599769008-mk-filter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com-B2C-$THROTTLED-DYNAMIC-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 88.106.233.110
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AihcAJoAt0ZYaulu/2dsb2JhbACBOGk
Received: from 88-106-233-110.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com ([88.106.233.110])
by smtp.business.co.uk with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2007 19:09:00 +0100
From: Ben Davis <entheh@users.sf.net>
To: Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl>
Subject: Re: DUMB license
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 19:09:20 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
References: <46B75BC0.20002@hhs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <46B75BC0.20002@hhs.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200708061909.21731.entheh@users.sf.net>
X-Anti-Virus: Kaspersky Anti-Virus for MailServers 5.5.2/RELEASE, bases: 06082007 #352893, status: clean

Hi :)

Technically, I renounced Clause 4 for Debian, back when DUMB v0.9.2 was the
latest version and Clauses 5 and 6 didn't exist. I had hoped 6 would solve
the problem. I never explicitly gave permission for them to remove the jokes
from the licence.

I had also hoped that Clause 5 wouldn't be an issue because it has the get-out
clause "if deemed appropriate", and possibly that Clause 4 is ill-defined
because "Program" is never defined anywhere :D but oh well.

You have my permission to add a note (I suggest above Clause 4) that Clauses 4
and 5 (and possibly 6) do not apply to users/maintainers/whoever (whichever
word or words fit best for you) of Fedora, but I'd appreciate it if, unlike
Debian, you kept the text of the clauses in there for their humour value.

Is this satisfactory?

Ben

On Monday 06 August 2007, you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> First let me start by introducing myself, I'm a linux enthousiast /
> developer and a Fedora contributer. I maintain the dumb package for Fedora.
>
> Currently we are doing a licensing audit of all our packages (what a pain)
> because of the coming of GPL version 3.
>
> During this audit the DUMB license has been held in the light too, and it
> has been deemed a non free license by the lawyers :(
>
> The problem are the clauses 4 and 5, the lawyers see this as non free "as
> it imposes absurd restrictions of use on the users of the software". I
> noticed in the Debina package that you've given Debian permission to
> distribute dumb with the 4th and 5th clause removed from the license (and
> thus the 6th too as that then no longer is necessary). If you could give us
> permission to do the same that would be great.
>
> A mail saying you will allow this is enough
>
> Many Thanks & Regards,
>
> Hans

---

Message-ID: <46B76569.6030306@hhs.nl>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:16:09 +0200
From: Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070615)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Davis <entheh@users.sf.net>
Subject: Re: DUMB license
References: <46B75BC0.20002@hhs.nl> <200708061909.21731.entheh@users.sf.net>
In-Reply-To: <200708061909.21731.entheh@users.sf.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ben Davis wrote:
> Hi :)
>

Hi,

Thanks for the quick response!

> Technically, I renounced Clause 4 for Debian, back when DUMB v0.9.2 was the
> latest version and Clauses 5 and 6 didn't exist. I had hoped 6 would solve
> the problem. I never explicitly gave permission for them to remove the jokes
> from the licence.
>

They haven't removed the joke, see:
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/libd/libdumb/libdumb_0.9.3-5/libdumb1.copyright

They probably never noticed the license change when upgrading to 0.9.3, but
even with the tekst there although perhaps GPL compatible it is not a Free
software license, because when used with non GPL software clauses 4 and 5 will
be in effect, making it non free.

> I had also hoped that Clause 5 wouldn't be an issue because it has the get-out
> clause "if deemed appropriate", and possibly that Clause 4 is ill-defined
> because "Program" is never defined anywhere :D but oh well.
>
> You have my permission to add a note (I suggest above Clause 4) that Clauses 4
> and 5 (and possibly 6) do not apply to users/maintainers/whoever (whichever
> word or words fit best for you) of Fedora, but I'd appreciate it if, unlike
> Debian, you kept the text of the clauses in there for their humour value.
>
> Is this satisfactory?
>

Erm, how about adding a text, that clauses 4-6 are there for humor only and are
not part of the official license?

Adding a text that they do not apply to Fedora .... is not enough, because we
(Fedora) want people to be able to take Fedora and do with it whatever they
want, at which moment it could no longer be Fedora, and then the clauses would
apply again. Think like how ubuntu is based on Debian.

Thanks & Regards,

Hans

---

Return-Path: <entheh@users.sf.net>
Received: from koko.hhs.nl ([145.52.2.16] verified)
by hhs.nl (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.6)
with ESMTP id 72786425 for j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:24:35 +0200
Received: from exim by koko.hhs.nl with spam-scanned (Exim 4.62)
(envelope-from <entheh@users.sf.net>)
id 1II7Fq-0002Z7-0g
for j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:24:35 +0200
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on koko.hhs.nl
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
version=3.1.8
Received: from exim (helo=koko)
by koko.hhs.nl with local-smtp (Exim 4.62)
(envelope-from <entheh@users.sf.net>)
id 1II7Fp-0002Z4-TU
for j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:24:33 +0200
Received: from [212.74.100.53] (port=19436 helo=mk-filter-2-a-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com)
by koko.hhs.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.62)
(envelope-from <entheh@users.sf.net>)
id 1II7Fp-0002Yz-K7
for j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:24:33 +0200
X-Trace: 599774314-mk-filter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com-B2C-$THROTTLED-DYNAMIC-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 88.106.233.110
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AihcAD8Ct0ZYaulu/2dsb2JhbACBOGk
Received: from 88-106-233-110.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com ([88.106.233.110])
by smtp.business.co.uk with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2007 19:24:33 +0100
From: Ben Davis <entheh@users.sf.net>
To: Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl>
Subject: Re: DUMB license
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 19:24:59 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
References: <46B75BC0.20002@hhs.nl> <200708061909.21731.entheh@users.sf.net> <46B76569.6030306@hhs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <46B76569.6030306@hhs.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200708061924.59814.entheh@users.sf.net>
X-Anti-Virus: Kaspersky Anti-Virus for MailServers 5.5.2/RELEASE, bases: 06082007 #352893, status: clean

On Monday 06 August 2007, you wrote:
> Ben Davis wrote:
> > Hi :)
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the quick response!
>
> > Technically, I renounced Clause 4 for Debian, back when DUMB v0.9.2 was
> > the latest version and Clauses 5 and 6 didn't exist. I had hoped 6 would
> > solve the problem. I never explicitly gave permission for them to remove
> > the jokes from the licence.
>
> They haven't removed the joke, see:
> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/libd/libdumb/libdumb_0.9.3-
>5/libdumb1.copyright
>
> They probably never noticed the license change when upgrading to 0.9.3, but
> even with the tekst there although perhaps GPL compatible it is not a Free
> software license, because when used with non GPL software clauses 4 and 5
> will be in effect, making it non free.

I believe the problem was put to me at the time in terms of the GPL, so that's
why I phrased Clause 6 the way I did. Not my fault!!

> > I had also hoped that Clause 5 wouldn't be an issue because it has the
> > get-out clause "if deemed appropriate", and possibly that Clause 4 is
> > ill-defined because "Program" is never defined anywhere :D but oh well.
> >
> > You have my permission to add a note (I suggest above Clause 4) that
> > Clauses 4 and 5 (and possibly 6) do not apply to
> > users/maintainers/whoever (whichever word or words fit best for you) of
> > Fedora, but I'd appreciate it if, unlike Debian, you kept the text of the
> > clauses in there for their humour value.
> >
> > Is this satisfactory?
>
> Erm, how about adding a text, that clauses 4-6 are there for humor only and
> are not part of the official license?

Yes, that will be acceptable. I misunderstood your requirements, sorry :)

> Adding a text that they do not apply to Fedora .... is not enough, because
> we (Fedora) want people to be able to take Fedora and do with it whatever
> they want, at which moment it could no longer be Fedora, and then the
> clauses would apply again. Think like how ubuntu is based on Debian.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
>
> Hans

You're welcome,

Ben

 
projeto & código: Vladimir Lettiev aka crux © 2004-2005, Andrew Avramenko aka liks © 2007-2008
mantenedor atual: Michael Shigorin
mantenedor da tradução: Fernando Martini aka fmartini © 2009