PSI('s icons) license vs EKG and EKG2
Hello, PSI is an instant messenger licensed under GPL with a couple of exceptions, and it contains some icons which are useful for the EKG and EKG2 programs (which are also instant messengers under GPL but with a different exception). Because of Ye Olde GPL vs OpenSSL issue and the incompatibility of the exceptions in each program's license, I don't think it is legal to link the icons directly into EKG and EKG2 (which is upstream's preferred way of using them). I'm also only 99% sure it's ok to do it by other means (runtime loading). Below is my explananation of the problem [0]. Luckily, PSI's upstream agreed to try to relicense the license to something more permissive. The reason for this email is because I would like to get it right from the beginning, so it would be great to get some consensus on what license change would satisfy us WRT inclusion and redistribution of PSI's icons with EKG and EKG2. Would adding a more generic OpenSSL exception be enough? Or should they use a different license? Would LGPL be sufficient? References: PSI's license (also covers the icons): http://svn.psi-im.org/psi/trunk/COPYING (In short, it's GPLv2 with the following non-standard bit: | As a special exception, the copyright holder(s) give permission to link | this program with the Qt Library (commercial or non-commercial edition), | and distribute the resulting executable, without including the source | code for the Qt library in the source distribution. | | As a special exception, the copyright holder(s) give permission to link | this program with any other library, and distribute the resulting | executable, without including the source code for the library in the | source distribution, provided that the library interfaces with this | program only via the following plugin interfaces: | |1. The Qt Plugin APIs, only as authored by Trolltech |2. The QCA Plugin API, only as authored by Justin Karneges EKG and EKG2 license is the same, and can be translated as: | The client program is released under the terms of the GPL v2 license, with the | additional exception that it is allowed to compile, link and use the program | with OpenSSL library by (The OpenSSL Project), available at | http://www.openssl.org/ [0] My explanation of the problem | | I had a look at the COPYING file in the root of PSI source tree [1], which, | due to lack of any more specific licensing information seems to be the | binding license for the icons. It is GPL with two special exceptions. | | Since the icons are built directly into ekg2's gtk plugin, their license | effectively limits what the plugin may be linked against. In particular, | PSI's license only allows to link the software it covers (i.e. the icons as | well) against OpenSSL via Qt or QCA plugin APIs, which ekg2 does not use. | | This raises Ye Olde GPL vs OpenSSL issue [2]. | | Since the gtk plugin is linked (indirectly, via ekg2 and other plugins) to | OpenSSL library, this makes the binary package illegal to distribute for | Debian, according to its more or less official position. [3] | | I am by no means an expert, but think there are two potential ways around | this problem. | | 1) relicense the icons, to a more permissive license (i.e. add another | exception). This might be the easiest way or impossible, depending on the | copyright holders' position. | | 2) change gtk plugin's code to load the icons at runtime, rather have them | built directly into the binary. | | Please also note that this problem now affects ekg (1), as the gtk UI code | was recently added to it. | |[1]. http://dev.psi-im.org/websvn/filedetails.php?repname=Psipath=%2Ftrunk%2FCOPYING |[2]. http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html |[3]. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/10/msg00113.html -- Marcin Owsiany [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://marcin.owsiany.pl/ GnuPG: 1024D/60F41216 FE67 DA2D 0ACA FC5E 3F75 D6F6 3A0D 8AA0 60F4 1216 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines
Hello debian-legal. Mugshot is an open project to create a live social experience around entertainment, and the mugshot-client integrates this into the linux-desktop. See http://mugshot.org for more info on this. The client is released under the terms of GPLv2, but Mugshot™ is also a trademark of Red Hat, Inc and may only be used in accordance with some trademark guidelines found at http://mugshot.org/trademark I've been maintaining the mugshot-client outside of the Debian-archives for 1,5 years now, due to some concerns with the Mugshot Trademark Guidelines at first. I vented these to the developers and Red Hat a while back, and at least my concerns have been solved now, as these guidelines are much clearer on redistribution of the client (see the part Modified Mugshot Client Code – Limited Trademark Permission) Therefore (upon several requests from users of my package) I now wish to upload the client to the main-section of the archive. However, I would really like some more (critical) eyes to take a look at the Trademark Guidelines before uploading, and someone to confirm or disapprove of my conclusion. The full text of http://mugshot.org/trademark as it is displayed on 2007-12-04 is attached below. The conditions as they are set at the moment are all met in my package. I'd like some feedback on this from you, and unless there is some strong disagreement on how Debian will be in compliance with this I will hopefully get to upload the package this coming weekend. Cheers :) Heikki --- Trademark Guidelines Mugshot™ Trademark Guidelines RED HAT, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THESE GUIDELINES AT ANY TIME. YOU SHOULD PERIODICALLY CHECK THESE GUIDELINES TO BE SURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE. Basic Introduction Red Hat, Inc. has a long and distinguished history of being an active contributor to the open source software community. One of the key features of open source software is that anyone has the right to copy, modify and redistribute the software, subject to the terms and conditions of certain license agreements or copyright permissions, such as the GNU General Public License. It is important to understand that, although Red Hat allows third parties to replicate its open source software under the GNU GPL, absent a written agreement or other express permission it does not allow third parties to use its trademarks. For example, absent a trademark license from Red Hat, a party would have the right to copy, modify and sell Red Hat's open source software, but they would have to call it by another name. Red Hat has always been fully supportive of open source rights with regard to copyrights and demonstrates that support by releasing the software we develop under open source licenses. This document is designed to provide guidance on how the software developed and marketed under the Mugshot™ trademark may be marketed by others, using Red Hat's Mugshot™ mark. A Brief Introduction To Copyright And Trademark Law As They Relate To Software The guidelines in this document are based on United States law. Although many countries follow the same principles discussed below, the laws of other countries may also differ on some points. Copyright Copyright law protects the expression of an idea. Mugshot™ consists of open source software modules, most developed by Red Hat but some developed by other members of the open source community. Those authors (or their employers) hold the copyrights in the modules or code they developed. Through Red Hat the Mugshot Project then permits others to copy, modify and redistribute the work under the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 and the Mugshot Project's own End User License Agreement. Although software licensed under the GPL is open source software, Red Hat retains ownership of the copyright in the work and only Red Hat can grant rights to use the Mugshot™ mark.. Neither the GPL nor the Mugshot Project's End User License Agreement grant any right to use Red Hat's trademarks in the redistribution of the collective work. Basic Introduction Trademarks are used to identify the source of goods and services in the market. Trademark law is best understood as consumer protection law, since it enables consumers of products to know the source of the products they purchase and allows them to distinguish those products from the products of other vendors. This is important in order to ensure that consumers are not fooled into purchasing a product of one company while believing it is a product of another company. For instance, Heinz® ketchup is a well-known brand of ketchup. If Jones Company decided to make its own ketchup, and was able to market it as Heinz® ketchup, Jones Company would profit in the sale of its ketchup from the customer goodwill established by the owner of the well-known Heinz® brand. Although that might be good for Jones Company, it could be bad for the consumers who purchased
Re: Review-request for Mugshot Trademark Guidelines
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 07:04:59PM +0100, Heikki Henriksen wrote: However, I would really like some more (critical) eyes to take a look at the Trademark Guidelines before uploading, and someone to confirm or disapprove of my conclusion. Trademark Guidelines [Lots of interesting but irrelevant background information about the nature of trade marks omitted. ;) ] Mugshot™ Trademark Guidelines [...] Any party wishing to use the Mugshot™ mark may do so as long as they meet these conditions: 1. They may use the Mugshot™ mark in association with the original Mugshot™ code found on the Mugshot Project website (see http://mugshot.org) without modification; or 2. They may use the Mugshot™ mark in association with a modified version of the original Mugshot™ client code provided they abide by the conditions set forth below; and 3. If they charge a fee for the CD-ROM or other media on which they deliver the Mugshot™ code, they warranty the media on which the Mugshot™ code is delivered, thus ensuring that the recipient receives a usable copy. Paragraph 3 may be the first problem. It basically prevents cheap CD vendors from selling copies of Debian on an as is basis. Except as expressly stated herein, no other rights are granted to use any other Red Hat trademarks, specifically including the RED HAT® and Shadowman logo® marks. Absolutely no exceptions. Distribution by FTP or Electronic Download If you distribute the Mugshot™ client code by FTP or other electronic download, you have permission to identify the download using the Mugshot™ mark so long as you are otherwise in compliance with these guidelines. If you are using Mugshot™ to identify the download, it must be in compliance with these Mugshot Trademark Guidelines, and you must also display the following statement: “This distribution of Mugshot™ is subject to the Red Hat license for Mugshot™ which may be found at http://mugshot.org/licenses.” Of course, you are always permitted to redistribute the code without utilizing the Mugshot™ mark so long as you otherwise comply with the GNU General Public License. Please bear in mind that you are solely responsible for ensuring that the download you provide complies with these Mugshot Trademark Guidelines. Someone with more technical knowledge than me will need to confirm whether or not that is a problem for FTP, bittorrent etc. If I access an FTP repository via the command line (or if I wget it from http://path.to/download/of/mugshot.deb), how is the required statement to be displayed? If Red Hat consider a README in the same download directory to be good enough then that should be fine, however. Modified Mugshot Client Code – Limited Trademark Permission Red Hat and the Mugshot Project support the extension of Mugshot™ to new platforms and languages. Red Hat grants a limited permission to use the Mugshot™ mark on these modified versions of the Mugshot™ client code Note that is only covers extending Mugshot to other platforms and languages, not distributing modified versions for the same platform or language. But packaging it for Debian probably counts as extension ... to a new platform, especially given the stated purpose of this limited permission being to make Mugshot as widely available as possible (while preserving Red Hat's trade mark rights). provided the following conditions are met: 1. You identify your version of the client code as an adapted version of Mugshot™ in the “About” dialog associated with the Mugshot icon. The attribution statement should be similar to: “Mugshot™ client code adapted for .” I'm guessing that's OK. 2. You do not prefix the named product with Red Hat (e.g. Red Hat Mugshot is not allowed.). That's fine too. 3. The changes you make do not alter the fundamental user experience from that provided by Mugshot™ as made available by Red Hat. That is, you can: 1. localize the client code; 2. provide patches or bug fixes to the client code; 3. provide extensions or plug-ins to the client code; or 4. adapt the client code to run on another platform; but 5. you cannot substantively modify or remove basic components of the client code such that the user experience is altered. 4. You do not redirect the client code to operate with a server other than the server found at mugshot.org Again, that's probably OK too. From a free software POV, it's always open to people to do any of the unpermitted acts under a different name. It is very important that any modified version of Mugshot™ meet (or exceed) the quality level people have come to associate with Mugshot™. Red Hat reserves the right to require persons to cease use of the Mugshot™ mark if they are redistributing software with low quality and efforts to remedy the
