On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:50:10 +1100 Daniel Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Was looking at http://www.afflib.org/LICENSE.txt and was wondering if > it really had any Gentoo implications with adding it as a package. > > I asked a few questions. Does the following seem reasonable? Just one comment - we should maintain a list of packages that have this sort of clause, so that it would be easy for releng (for example) to either avoid mentioning them in the advertising for release media, or to credit as required. I'm thinking of the "2007.0 LiveCD is now out; upgraded packages include: ... afflib n.m ..." sort of announcement. Personally, I would say that if we include credits for one package, we should include credits for all - it hardly seems fair to prominently highlight credits for a minor package like afflib, without listing everyone else. It'd be a massive list, of course, but it would be fair :) > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123175 > > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > > Subject: Re: afflib licence > Date: Wednesday 07 February 2007 09:56 > From: Simson Garfinkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Daniel Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Brian Carrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Carl Hoffman > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Hi, Daniel. Thanks for your email. We'd be happy to have you add > AFFLIB to the Gentoo distribution. > > I'll answer your questions: > > Is inclusion in an online database like http://packages.gentoo.org? > > advertising and therefore subject to the clause 3? > > No, we do not consider that advertising. > > > What happens if a security > > vulnerability is found and a GLSA (Gentoo Linux Security Advisory) > > is issued. > > We wouldn't consider that to be an advertisement either. > > > What about a magazine article on Gentoo? > > We don't consider that to be an advertisement. > > > The University of California, Berkeley revoked their clause 3 in > > 1999 I > > believe because of similar legal vagueness over advertising. > > (ref: http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html) > > Yes, I'm aware that they did this. > > We've decided to keep the advertising clause because Basis > Technology, the company that funded a substantial amount of the > AFFLIB development, wishes to be acknowledged in computer forensic > products that use AFF. We do not consider the bundling of AFFLIB on > a CDROM or online distribution of Linux utilities to meet the > requirements in section 3. > > Section 3 states: > > * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this > software > * must display the following acknowledgement: > > If your advertising of Gentoo mentions features or use of AFFLIB, > then we would expect you to say that AFFLIB is a product of Simson > Garfinkel and Basis Technology. But if you are merely including the > code and not mentioning the fact that you include AFFLIB in your > advertisements, then you have no need to mention Simson Garfinkel or > Basis Technology in your advertisements either. > > I hope that this email clears up any questions that you might have. > But if you have others, please feel free to drop me an email. > > -Simson > > On Feb 6, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Daniel Black wrote: > > Simson, > > > > Was looking at the afflib product and was considering adding it to > > the Gentoo > > distribution when I looked at the license and found the BSD-4 > > license variant. > > > > The problem with the particular license is the condition 3 > > advertising clause > > and its vagueity. > > > > Is inclusion in an online database like http://packages.gentoo.org? > > advertising and therefore subject to the clause 3? What happens if > > a security > > vulnerability is found and a GLSA (Gentoo Linux Security Advisory) > > is issued. > > Is this an advertisement? If Gentoo does a booth at an Expo is this > > included? > > What about a magazine article on Gentoo? > > > > The University of California, Berkeley revoked their clause 3 in > > 1999 I > > believe because of similar legal vagueness over advertising. > > (ref: http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html) > > > > Can you consider doing the same? > > > > Other references: > > http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/articles/2007/01/08/a- > > shadow-lies-upon-all-bsd-distributions > > -- > > Daniel Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Gentoo Foundation > > ------------------------------------------------------- > -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
