Re: graywolf (TimberWolf) and licensing
* Ruben Undheim: > I guess that we are all set to include graywolf in Debian now? Yes, this should work, but you should include this permission notice in the sources, when you received it, and who sent it to you (not necessarily the name, the role in the organization is enough). This is important to make sure that we can trace things back in case a need for that arises. (This assumes that it is clear to which source code this permission notice applies. I have not seen the discussions with the original copyright owner leading to this statement, and I do not know the overall copyright situation of the software.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87380kfdf2@mid.deneb.enyo.de
Re: graywolf (TimberWolf) and licensing
Hi again, It has been a while since I brought up this issue, but now we've got a positive response from Yale. We're allowed to redistribute it under GPL-2+ on a few conditions. This is the text: """ This work is distributed in the hope that it will be useful; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or any later version, on the following conditions: (a) YALE MAKES NO, AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL, REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES THAT THE MANUFACTURE, USE, PRACTICE, SALE OR OTHER DISPOSAL OF THE SOFTWARE DOES NOT OR WILL NOT INFRINGE UPON ANY PATENT OR OTHER RIGHTS NOT VESTED IN YALE. (b) YALE MAKES NO, AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL, REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. (c) LICENSEE SHALL MAKE NO STATEMENTS, REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTIES WHATSOEVER TO ANY THIRD PARTIES THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE DISCLAIMERS BY YALE IN ARTICLE (a) AND (b) above. (d) IN NO EVENT SHALL YALE, OR ITS TRUSTEES, DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND AFFILIATES BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR INJURY TO PROPERTY AND LOST PROFITS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YALE SHALL BE ADVISED, SHALL HAVE OTHER REASON TO KNOW, OR IN FACT SHALL KNOW OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE FOREGOING. """ I guess that we are all set to include graywolf in Debian now? Regards, Ruben 2014-10-28 18:37 GMT+01:00 Ruben Undheim : > Hi everyone, > > There is this piece of software called TimberWolf which was developed > in Yale University in the early 90's, and at that time was distributed > as open source. Later on, it was made commercial closed source, but > the latest open source code version has been maintained by Tim Edwards > of http://opencircuitdesign.com in recent years. > > Timberwolf is one of the dependencies of qflow > (http://opencircuitdesign.com/qflow/) which I'm working on packaging. > In order to make the further development more tidy, we've forked > Timberwolf, and now it's called graywolf > (https://github.com/rubund/graywolf). > > However, there is no "Copyright" notice in the source code files. Tim > was in contact with the "Director of Technology Licensing" on Yale and > asked something like this: > > """ > If there is an appropriate Yale copyright license that covers this work, I > would like to add it to the distribution, where it can continue to be > developed under the terms of the license. If not, I would like to place the > existing code under the standard Gnu Public License (GPL). I would > appreciate it if I can get a legal opinion on this from somebody at Yale. > """ > > He then got this response: > > "" > Your inquiry below was forwarded to me. Yale would appreciate it if you > would simply state that the software was developed at Yale. That said, we > don’t have any specific text that you should cite specifying copyright > ownership, etc. > > Hope this helps, > xxx > "" > > My gut feeling tells me that we will need some more explicit open > source statement from the developers for having it included in debian. > But maybe it is enough to just refer to the email thread. They have > not said that Tim cannot place it under the GPL when he said he will > do it. > > What is your view on this? Can we simply refer to that email and make > it GPL ourself? > > > Best regards, > Ruben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/ca+chnyva58fv1ran01yoxctl2nmedbo8n4byhbvkuhsj6ei...@mail.gmail.com
Re: graywolf (TimberWolf) and licensing
Ben Finney writes ("Re: graywolf (TimberWolf) and licensing"):
> The problem you point out, though, still remains: None of the above
> seems to constitute a *grant* of license, IMO. That would take the form
> of the copyright holder explicitly stating “ may specific action bar> under the terms of ”.
Yes. But I think the correspondent at Yale is trying to do the right
thing. I suggest that the best plan is to simply write back, without
too much legalese, asking a simple question to which we hope for a
"yes" answer.
For example:
> Your inquiry below was forwarded to me. Yale would appreciate it if
> you would simply state that the software was developed at Yale. That
> said, we don't have any specific text that you should cite specifying
> copyright ownership, etc.
Thanks for your message. Just to be clear, then: can you confirm
that Yale is happy for us to distribute graywolf under the GNU
GPLv2+ ? We will of course give credit to Yale.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21584.61975.127453.864...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: graywolf (TimberWolf) and licensing
Ruben Undheim writes: > He then got this response: > > "" > Your inquiry below was forwarded to me. Yale would appreciate it if > you would simply state that the software was developed at Yale. That > said, we don’t have any specific text that you should cite specifying > copyright ownership, etc. > > Hope this helps, > xxx > "" That statement only addresses a copyright *notice*; that is, a notice stating which party holds copyright and what are the years of publication. The response indicates they don't require any particular copyright notice on the work. That's correct, as far as it goes; copyright notices are formalities and are helpful to recipients, but are not required in any particular format (or at all) for copyright law to be effective. The problem you point out, though, still remains: None of the above seems to constitute a *grant* of license, IMO. That would take the form of the copyright holder explicitly stating “ may under the terms of ”. > My gut feeling tells me that we will need some more explicit open > source statement from the developers for having it included in debian. You're right, for the work to be in Debian it needs an explicit license grant to all recipients under free-software terms. For the work to be distributed via the project's infrastructure (whether in Debian or not) we need specific grant of license to do that. > But maybe it is enough to just refer to the email thread. They have > not said that Tim cannot place it under the GPL when he said he will > do it. I think that's not enough to constitute a grant of license. But it may be enough that the work was *already* distributed under free software terms from its earlier copyright holder. What writing from the copyright holder do you have for that? -- \ “In case you haven't noticed, [the USA] are now almost as | `\ feared and hated all over the world as the Nazis were.” —Kurt | _o__) Vonnegut, 2004 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85egtr20nn@benfinney.id.au
