1 |
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:50:10 +1100 |
2 |
Daniel Black <dragonheart@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Was looking at http://www.afflib.org/LICENSE.txt and was wondering if |
5 |
> it really had any Gentoo implications with adding it as a package. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I asked a few questions. Does the following seem reasonable? |
8 |
|
9 |
Just one comment - we should maintain a list of packages that have this |
10 |
sort of clause, so that it would be easy for releng (for example) to |
11 |
either avoid mentioning them in the advertising for release media, or |
12 |
to credit as required. I'm thinking of the "2007.0 LiveCD is now out; |
13 |
upgraded packages include: ... afflib n.m ..." sort of announcement. |
14 |
|
15 |
Personally, I would say that if we include credits for one package, we |
16 |
should include credits for all - it hardly seems fair to |
17 |
prominently highlight credits for a minor package like afflib, without |
18 |
listing everyone else. It'd be a massive list, of course, but it would |
19 |
be fair :) |
20 |
|
21 |
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123175 |
22 |
> |
23 |
> ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Subject: Re: afflib licence |
26 |
> Date: Wednesday 07 February 2007 09:56 |
27 |
> From: Simson Garfinkel <simsong@×××.org> |
28 |
> To: Daniel Black <dragonheart@g.o> |
29 |
> Cc: Brian Carrier <brianc@×××××××××.com>, Carl Hoffman |
30 |
> <carlh@×××××××××.com> |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Hi, Daniel. Thanks for your email. We'd be happy to have you add |
33 |
> AFFLIB to the Gentoo distribution. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> I'll answer your questions: |
36 |
> > Is inclusion in an online database like http://packages.gentoo.org? |
37 |
> > advertising and therefore subject to the clause 3? |
38 |
> |
39 |
> No, we do not consider that advertising. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> > What happens if a security |
42 |
> > vulnerability is found and a GLSA (Gentoo Linux Security Advisory) |
43 |
> > is issued. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> We wouldn't consider that to be an advertisement either. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> > What about a magazine article on Gentoo? |
48 |
> |
49 |
> We don't consider that to be an advertisement. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> > The University of California, Berkeley revoked their clause 3 in |
52 |
> > 1999 I |
53 |
> > believe because of similar legal vagueness over advertising. |
54 |
> > (ref: http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html) |
55 |
> |
56 |
> Yes, I'm aware that they did this. |
57 |
> |
58 |
> We've decided to keep the advertising clause because Basis |
59 |
> Technology, the company that funded a substantial amount of the |
60 |
> AFFLIB development, wishes to be acknowledged in computer forensic |
61 |
> products that use AFF. We do not consider the bundling of AFFLIB on |
62 |
> a CDROM or online distribution of Linux utilities to meet the |
63 |
> requirements in section 3. |
64 |
> |
65 |
> Section 3 states: |
66 |
> |
67 |
> * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this |
68 |
> software |
69 |
> * must display the following acknowledgement: |
70 |
> |
71 |
> If your advertising of Gentoo mentions features or use of AFFLIB, |
72 |
> then we would expect you to say that AFFLIB is a product of Simson |
73 |
> Garfinkel and Basis Technology. But if you are merely including the |
74 |
> code and not mentioning the fact that you include AFFLIB in your |
75 |
> advertisements, then you have no need to mention Simson Garfinkel or |
76 |
> Basis Technology in your advertisements either. |
77 |
> |
78 |
> I hope that this email clears up any questions that you might have. |
79 |
> But if you have others, please feel free to drop me an email. |
80 |
> |
81 |
> -Simson |
82 |
> |
83 |
> On Feb 6, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Daniel Black wrote: |
84 |
> > Simson, |
85 |
> > |
86 |
> > Was looking at the afflib product and was considering adding it to |
87 |
> > the Gentoo |
88 |
> > distribution when I looked at the license and found the BSD-4 |
89 |
> > license variant. |
90 |
> > |
91 |
> > The problem with the particular license is the condition 3 |
92 |
> > advertising clause |
93 |
> > and its vagueity. |
94 |
> > |
95 |
> > Is inclusion in an online database like http://packages.gentoo.org? |
96 |
> > advertising and therefore subject to the clause 3? What happens if |
97 |
> > a security |
98 |
> > vulnerability is found and a GLSA (Gentoo Linux Security Advisory) |
99 |
> > is issued. |
100 |
> > Is this an advertisement? If Gentoo does a booth at an Expo is this |
101 |
> > included? |
102 |
> > What about a magazine article on Gentoo? |
103 |
> > |
104 |
> > The University of California, Berkeley revoked their clause 3 in |
105 |
> > 1999 I |
106 |
> > believe because of similar legal vagueness over advertising. |
107 |
> > (ref: http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html) |
108 |
> > |
109 |
> > Can you consider doing the same? |
110 |
> > |
111 |
> > Other references: |
112 |
> > http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/articles/2007/01/08/a- |
113 |
> > shadow-lies-upon-all-bsd-distributions |
114 |
> > -- |
115 |
> > Daniel Black <dragonheart@g.o> |
116 |
> > Gentoo Foundation |
117 |
> |
118 |
> ------------------------------------------------------- |
119 |
> |
120 |
|
121 |
|
122 |
-- |
123 |
Kevin F. Quinn |