Created attachment 356472 [details] Gentoo GroupWise Linux Client Distribution License Dear trustees, I've been trying for a while to get the Novell Groupwise client included into the tree. After long debate with Novell (which was mostly in German), I got the attached "Client Distribution License agreement" for us to sign and return. I guess this needs your attention... Best, Andreas
Is the wording in 3.1.1. "make the Novell Software available for download to Customers solely from websites owned and exclusively controlled by Provider" sufficient to allow distribution via mirrors? I guess we don't "exclusively control" mirror sites.
If this is non-free, why redistribute it at all? Why not just tell the user to stick it in distfiles and go from there, as was done with java and other packages with unfriendly licenses?
Short background story: The Groupwise *Client* has no bundled license text file and can be freely downloaded from the Novell website. (Licensing is per "user object" on the server; without server, the client is useless. In the server EULA the client is not separately mentioned, and besides, the server version with which this particular client (the newest one for Linux) was originially distributed is not available anymore.) The only thing I really wanted from Novell was some sort of license description for the client, such that we can upload it into /licenses and act accordingly. Instead, I spent half a dozen e-mails explaining our ACCEPT_LICENSE mechanism and ended up with this piece of paperwork instead. I would be fully happy with RESTRICT=fetch and us not distributing the Novell tgz at all. However I'm slowly getting tired, and still don't have anything for /licenses.
(In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #3) > I would be fully happy with RESTRICT=fetch and us not distributing the > Novell tgz at all. However I'm slowly getting tired, and still don't have > anything for /licenses. I'd think you could just use RESTRICT=mirror if they have a stable URL. We don't need a license if we don't distribute it. The license probably should be set to all-rights-reserved if no license is published for the software (I forget if this one is completely deprecated and completely defer to the licensing team).
(In reply to Richard Freeman from comment #4) > (In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #3) > > However I'm slowly getting tired, and still don't have anything for > > /licenses. I can feel your pain. ;-) They claim in 3.1. of attached file that "The license grants and restrictions for Customers for the Novell Software are contained in the End User License Agreement (“EULA”) included with the Software." But you say that there's no such EULA included with it? > I'd think you could just use RESTRICT=mirror if they have a stable URL. We > don't need a license if we don't distribute it. > > The license probably should be set to all-rights-reserved if no license is > published for the software (I forget if this one is completely deprecated > and completely defer to the licensing team). all-rights-reserved was meant for the case where there is no license at all. Not really what we have here, it may well be that Novell's conditions are more restrictive.
Here's the mail from Novell, translation (mine) below. Hallo Herr Hüttel Vielen Dank für die Informationen. Anbei das "Distribution Agreement" welches wir unterschrieben zurück benötigen. Sie bekommen dann noch die EULA von mir welche dann per "Konfigurationsdatei" akzeptiert werden muss. Damit können Sie dann unseren Client in Ihre Distribution auf nehmen. Wenn Sie Fragen haben melden Sie sich einfach. Gruß, Kai Reichert translation (mine) Hello Mr Hüttel, many thanks for the information. Attached is the "distribution agreement", which we need to get back signed. You will obtain then the EULA from me, which will have to be accepted "by configuration file". Then you will be able to integrate our client into your distribution. If you have any questions, just contact us. Regards. Kai Reichert
I also don't believe that this document would allow us to distribute it using our regular means (like mirroring). It would also require us to act upon new releases fast(er) that we might be able to (within 10 days).
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #5) > all-rights-reserved was meant for the case where there is no license at all. > Not really what we have here, it may well be that Novell's conditions are > more restrictive. What is their license? If it exists, then just stick it in licenses and reference that. If it doesn't exist then use all-rights-reserved. I don't know how it can both exist and not exist. What they sent us was an offer of a license - it has no power whatsoever unless we agree to it. I strongly suggest that we don't. We don't need to, so why would we subject ourselves to legal liability by signing it? If we don't sign it, then there simply is no license, and all-rights-reserved applies afaict. You don't need a license to put an ebuild in the tree. You just have to document what the license is, or if one doesn't exist.
(In reply to Richard Freeman from comment #8) > (In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #5) > > all-rights-reserved was meant for the case where there is no license at all. > > Not really what we have here, it may well be that Novell's conditions are > > more restrictive. > > What is their license? If it exists, then just stick it in licenses and > reference that. If it doesn't exist then use all-rights-reserved. I don't > know how it can both exist and not exist. Rich, please have a look at comment 3 and comment 6 ...
(In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #9) > (In reply to Richard Freeman from comment #8) > > (In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #5) > > > all-rights-reserved was meant for the case where there is no license at all. > > > Not really what we have here, it may well be that Novell's conditions are > > > more restrictive. > > > > What is their license? If it exists, then just stick it in licenses and > > reference that. If it doesn't exist then use all-rights-reserved. I don't > > know how it can both exist and not exist. > > Rich, please have a look at comment 3 and comment 6 ... I read both before replying. It sounds like there is no distribution license unless we make a deal with them, so just ignore their offer of one and call it all-rights-reserved and set RESTRICT=mirror (if their URL is stable), or RESTRICT=fetch (if their URL is not stable). I don't get what the issue is, and it isn't because I didn't read the previous comments. You don't need a license to put an ebuild in the tree - only to distribute a copyrighted work.
Reply mine (translation mine below): Hallo Herr Reichert, nach Absprache mit den Trustees der Gentoo Foundation verzichten wir darauf, Ihre Dateien (über Gentoo-Server oder Releasemedien) zu verteilen. Damit besteht kein Anlaß für ein "Distribution Agreement". Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Andreas Hüttel -- Hello Mr Reichert, after talking to the trustees of the Gentoo Foundation, we forgo distributing your files (via Gentoo servers or release media). Thus there is no rationale for a "Distribution Agreement". Kind regards, Andreas Hüttel -- If noone protests here, I'll follow Rich's advice during the next days, place all-rights-reserved in the license field combined with mirror restriction, and then close the bug. > It sounds like there is no distribution license unless we make a deal with > them, so just ignore their offer of one and call it all-rights-reserved and > set RESTRICT=mirror (if their URL is stable), or RESTRICT=fetch (if their > URL is not stable).
# ChangeLog for mail-client/novell-groupwise-client # Copyright 1999-2013 Gentoo Foundation; Distributed under the GPL v2 # $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/mail-client/novell-groupwise-client/ChangeLog,v 1.1 2013/09/06 18:16:07 dilfridge Exp $ *novell-groupwise-client-8.0.2.96933 (06 Sep 2013) 06 Sep 2013; Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org> +novell-groupwise-client-8.0.2.96933.ebuild, +metadata.xml: New package, based on the work by Mario Fetka and Michael Dwyer in the n4g overlay
