Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 444424 - app-crypt/nistp224, dev-libs/djb, net-mail/{checkpassword,qmailanalog,serialmail}, net-misc/clockspeed, www-servers/publicfile: missing license
Summary: app-crypt/nistp224, dev-libs/djb, net-mail/{checkpassword,qmailanalog,serialm...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: Normal normal with 1 vote (vote)
Assignee: Licenses team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: as-is-license
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2012-11-23 11:28 UTC by Ulrich Müller
Modified: 2013-04-24 15:45 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2012-11-23 11:28:48 UTC
There's neither a copyright notice nor a license included in the package's tarball. Also no information on HOMEPAGE.
Comment 1 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev 2012-12-01 08:49:47 UTC
I couldn't find it either... no idea about what to do :/
Comment 2 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2012-12-01 12:57:41 UTC
Same situation for dev-libs/djb.

There's some information about redistribution terms at <http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html>. But looks like these two packages are not included.
Comment 3 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2012-12-08 15:07:10 UTC
More packages to add. The following is hopefully a complete list of the packages of D. J. Bernstein that we include (and that he hasn't placed into the public domain):

   app-crypt/nistp224
   dev-libs/djb
   net-mail/checkpassword
   net-mail/qmailanalog
   net-mail/serialmail
   net-misc/clockspeed
   www-servers/publicfile
Comment 4 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2012-12-08 16:47:16 UTC
Of the packages mentioned in the previous comment, only for net-mail/qmailanalog the right to distribute is granted: "You may distribute unmodified copies of qmailanalog-0.70.tar.gz." (in README).

All others only contain a copyright statement, but no license whatsoever.

CCing trustees.
Comment 5 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2012-12-08 17:42:17 UTC
Great, this licensing model (or lack thereof) has made it into Wikipedia:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence-Free_Software>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_J._Bernstein#Licenses>
See also the references therein.
Comment 6 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2012-12-10 08:32:55 UTC
I already suggested (by e-mail to licenses team) that we should add a licenses/all-rights-reserved file, along the following lines:

   All rights reserved.

   This package either has an explicit "all rights reserved" clause, or
   comes without any license, or only with a disclaimer. This means that
   you have only the rights that are granted to you by law. If you have
   lawfully acquired a copy of the program (e.g., by buying it or by
   downloading it from the author's site) then in many legislations you
   are allowed to compile it, run it, make a backup, and to patch it as
   necessary, without permission from the copyright holder.

   Redistribution of the program is not allowed.

   Disclaimer: We believe that the above applies to the United States
   and countries in the European Union at least. However, it is your own
   responsibility to obey your country's laws.

It would come in handy for cases like the packages listed above. Of course, any ebuild using this would have to be mirror and bindist restricted.


We would then have the following classes of licenses:

* public-domain, you can do anything you want,

* real licenses that grant you _more_ than your statutory rights
  (these subdivide into free and non-free),

* all-rights-reserved, you only have the default rights granted by law,

* license agreements, where the copyright holders (try to) take away some
  of your rights, i.e. you have _less_ than your statutory rights
  (this more or less coincides with the @EULA license group)

But maybe this is something for the trustees to decide.
Comment 7 Richard Freeman gentoo-dev 2012-12-10 15:39:10 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> I already suggested (by e-mail to licenses team) that we should add a
> licenses/all-rights-reserved file, along the following lines:
> 

++ - I'd be interested in whether the licenses team supports this.  If necessary the trustees can take this up (there is a meeting in 6 days so ideally we should try to have this ready for decision prior to this).

I agree with all that you stated, save the bit about licenses that take away rights.  That is debatable, but not really relevant to the matter at hand.  Insofar as the proposal to add the pseudo-license with the text you supplied goes, I fully support this.
Comment 8 Matija "hook" Šuklje 2012-12-10 17:44:05 UTC
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > I already suggested (by e-mail to licenses team) that we should add a
> > licenses/all-rights-reserved file, along the following lines:
> > 
> 
> ++ - I'd be interested in whether the licenses team supports this.  If
> necessary the trustees can take this up (there is a meeting in 6 days so
> ideally we should try to have this ready for decision prior to this).

As a member of the Licenses Team I support Ulm’s proposal.

Such a distinction could make the legal situation of packages clearer for Gentoo developers and users.

> I agree with all that you stated, save the bit about licenses that take away
> rights.  That is debatable, but not really relevant to the matter at hand.

In law school (in Slovenia, EU) we were taught the distinction between (real) licenses and (licensing) agreements as Ulm suggests.
Comment 9 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2012-12-28 22:10:47 UTC
@trustees: Any news here?
Comment 10 James Le Cuirot gentoo-dev 2012-12-28 22:46:09 UTC
If it does get added, this needs to be applied to games-strategy/dungeon-defenders. See bug #448416.
Comment 11 Julian Ospald 2013-01-01 16:57:32 UTC
this is also currently blocking an ebuild of mine which installs a commercial game
http://www.ftlgame.com/

games herd feels uncomfortable about adding it with empty LICENSE
Comment 12 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2013-01-01 20:18:17 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> I already suggested (by e-mail to licenses team) that we should add a
> licenses/all-rights-reserved file, along the following lines:
> 
>    All rights reserved.
> 
>    This package either has an explicit "all rights reserved" clause, or
>    comes without any license, or only with a disclaimer. This means that
>    you have only the rights that are granted to you by law. If you have
>    lawfully acquired a copy of the program (e.g., by buying it or by
>    downloading it from the author's site) then in many legislations you
>    are allowed to compile it, run it, make a backup, and to patch it as
>    necessary, without permission from the copyright holder.
> 
>    Redistribution of the program is not allowed.
> 
>    Disclaimer: We believe that the above applies to the United States
>    and countries in the European Union at least. However, it is your own
>    responsibility to obey your country's laws.

Committed to CVS as licenses/all-rights-reserved, with one small change in wording: I've omitted the word "either" in the first sentence.
Comment 13 Richard Freeman gentoo-dev 2013-01-01 20:35:46 UTC
(In reply to comment #12)
> 
> Committed to CVS as licenses/all-rights-reserved, with one small change in
> wording: I've omitted the word "either" in the first sentence.

Thanks - so far all the trustees who have commented by mail are fine with moving forward.  However, several have not responded at all.

In the absence of any kind of objection I think the licenses team can just run with this.  After all, it really is ideal for the license team to run with the ball unless they need backup.  The trustees don't need to approve every decision they make/etc.  Thanks for CCing us just the same.
Comment 14 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2013-01-01 21:45:35 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> The following is hopefully a complete list of the packages of
> D. J. Bernstein that we include (and that he hasn't placed into the
> public domain):

All fixed, as follows:

>    net-mail/qmailanalog

LICENSE="freedist"

>    app-crypt/nistp224
>    net-mail/checkpassword
>    net-mail/serialmail
>    net-misc/clockspeed
>    www-servers/publicfile

LICENSE="all-rights-reserved"
RESTRICT="bindist mirror"

>    dev-libs/djb

As above, but with an additional "public-domain", see the package's HOMEPAGE:
"Actually, Bernstein explicitly declared parts of his work to be public domain, for example the tai code that is included in libdjb (albeit not documented yet)."


(In reply to comment #13)
> Thanks - so far all the trustees who have commented by mail are fine with
> moving forward.  However, several have not responded at all.
>
> In the absence of any kind of objection I think the licenses team can just
> run with this.  After all, it really is ideal for the license team to run
> with the ball unless they need backup.  The trustees don't need to approve
> every decision they make/etc.  Thanks for CCing us just the same.

Thanks for the affirmative answer.