Bug #19256 for NTLM: Restrictive license terms

Mon May 15 04:01:29 2006 Guest - Ticket created

Subject:

Restrictive license terms

I'm hoping to be able to package this module for inclusion in Fedora Extras (a source of additional RPM packages for users of Fedora Core Linux). However, I'm not able to do so at present because the terms under which the module is licensed are not free. The particular issue is the use restriction: "as long as ... you do not ... try to sell it" This clause prevents anyone from packaging up some or all packages in a repository as a bundle, writing them to media and then selling the media (even at cost price), which is what most Linux distributors do. Hence this module cannot be included in the distribution as it stands. Discussion on this subject on fedora-extras-list: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-May/msg00326.html It might also be beneficial to relax the "send me diffs" requirement, given that it might at some time be necessary for someone to publish a security fix at a time when you were unavailable (e.g. on holiday) to receive diffs. It might be worth considering using the Artistic license (one of the two licenses used by perl itself) as this seems to be in the same spirit as the terms you're using but without the problematic clauses.

Fri Mar 14 10:43:20 2008 nigel.metheringham [...] Dev.intechnology.co.uk - Correspondence added

From:

nigel.metheringham [...] Dev.intechnology.co.uk

On Mon May 15 04:01:29 2006, guest wrote: Show quoted text

> It might be worth considering using the Artistic license (one of the two > licenses used by perl itself) as this seems to be in the same spirit as > the terms you're using but without the problematic clauses.

Actually this "license" has been successfully overruled in court, and so all perl modules using the "Artistic License" that are in Fedora are currently being requested to relicense (normally dual license with something like the GPM). Shortly all packages that are only Artistic Licensed will be purged from the Fedora distribution.

Fri Mar 14 10:43:23 2008 The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

Fri Mar 14 11:47:40 2008 paul [...] city-fan.org - Correspondence added

From:

paul [...] city-fan.org

On Fri Mar 14 10:43:20 2008, nigel.metheringham@Dev.intechnology.co.uk wrote: Show quoted text

> On Mon May 15 04:01:29 2006, guest wrote:

> > It might be worth considering using the Artistic license (one of the two > > licenses used by perl itself) as this seems to be in the same spirit as > > the terms you're using but without the problematic clauses.

> > Actually this "license" has been successfully overruled in court, and > so all perl modules using the "Artistic License" that are in Fedora > are currently being requested to relicense (normally dual license with > something like the GPM). Shortly all packages that are only Artistic > Licensed will be purged from the Fedora distribution.

Indeed; the Artistic license was ruled to be a contract rather than a license. Better choices would be: Artistic (clarified): http://www.statistica.unimib.it/utenti/dellavedova/software/artistic2.html Artistic 2.0: http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0 A full list of acceptable free licenses from the Fedora Project can be found here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

Sat Mar 15 00:06:36 2008 BUZZ [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

Subject:	Restrictive license terms - clarification!
From:	BUZZ [...] cpan.org

On Mon May 15 04:01:29 2006, guest wrote: Show quoted text

> I'm hoping to be able to package this module for inclusion in Fedora > Extras (a source of additional RPM packages for users of Fedora Core > Linux). However, I'm not able to do so at present because the terms > under which the module is licensed are not free. The particular issue is > the use restriction: > > "as long as ... you do not ... try to sell it" > > This clause prevents anyone from packaging up some or all packages in a > repository as a bundle, writing them to media and then selling the media > (even at cost price), which is what most Linux distributors do. Hence > this module cannot be included in the distribution as it stands. >

As the current maintainer, but not the original author of most of the code, I have left the original license wording intact, but I hereby clarify the requirements of this license to specifically permit the packaging and distribution of this software in operating-system distributions (such as many linux-es) that may charge for media and related costs, but are open-source based. This includes at the very least all Linux and BSD distributions. Buzz. NTLM module maintainer. Show quoted text

> It might also be beneficial to relax the "send me diffs" requirement, > given that it might at some time be necessary for someone to publish a > security fix at a time when you were unavailable (e.g. on holiday) to > receive diffs.

The license does not specify that I must respond to you when you send me diffs, only that you must make an effort to contact me. Emailing me your changes, and getting no response fulfills your obligations under this clause, so you can comfortably release your own security patches, so long as I get emailed a copy at the same time. Show quoted text

> It might be worth considering using the Artistic license (one of the two > licenses used by perl itself) as this seems to be in the same spirit as > the terms you're using but without the problematic clauses.

I may consider it in the future, if you are still unhappy with my clarifications above.

Mon Mar 17 13:48:52 2008 paul [...] city-fan.org - Correspondence added

From:

paul [...] city-fan.org

On Sat Mar 15 00:06:36 2008, BUZZ wrote: Show quoted text

> On Mon May 15 04:01:29 2006, guest wrote:

> > I'm hoping to be able to package this module for inclusion in Fedora > > Extras (a source of additional RPM packages for users of Fedora Core > > Linux). However, I'm not able to do so at present because the terms > > under which the module is licensed are not free. The particular

> issue is

> > the use restriction: > > > > "as long as ... you do not ... try to sell it" > > > > This clause prevents anyone from packaging up some or all packages

> in a

> > repository as a bundle, writing them to media and then selling the

> media

> > (even at cost price), which is what most Linux distributors do.

> Hence

> > this module cannot be included in the distribution as it stands. > >

> > As the current maintainer, but not the original author of most of the > code, I have left the > original license wording intact, but I hereby clarify the requirements > of this license to > specifically permit the packaging and distribution of this software in > operating-system > distributions (such as many linux-es) that may charge for media and > related costs, but are > open-source based. This includes at the very least all Linux and BSD > distributions. > > Buzz. > NTLM module maintainer. >

> > It might also be beneficial to relax the "send me diffs"

> requirement,

> > given that it might at some time be necessary for someone to publish

> a

> > security fix at a time when you were unavailable (e.g. on holiday)

> to

> > receive diffs.

> > The license does not specify that I must respond to you when you send > me diffs, only that > you must make an effort to contact me. Emailing me your changes, > and getting no response > fulfills your obligations under this clause, so you can comfortably > release your own security > patches, so long as I get emailed a copy at the same time. >

> > It might be worth considering using the Artistic license (one of the

> two

> > licenses used by perl itself) as this seems to be in the same spirit

> as

> > the terms you're using but without the problematic clauses.

> > I may consider it in the future, if you are still unhappy with my > clarifications above.

Fedora's licensing policy is basically that software must be free software as defined by the FSF. I don't think that the clarifications you've made actually go far enough for the module to qualify as free software, unfortunately. 1. The FSF are quite happy for people to charge lots of money for free software: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html 2. Restrictions on commercial redistribution and requirements to send improvements back to an original author are cited as reasons why various other licenses are not free on the FSF license list web page: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html For instance, the Reciprocal Public License is said to be non-free for a number of reasons, two of which are: a: It puts limits on prices charged for an initial copy. b: It requires notification of the original developer for publication of a modified version. The FSF's philosophy page (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) says: You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way. So, thanks for looking at this and responding, but the situation as it stands is that the module cannot be included in Fedora. Paul.

Sat Mar 19 08:38:13 2011 SILASMONK [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

David, I notice that you cite some of the code as being derived from fetchmail which has a GPL license. As I understand it this means this should be distributed under a GPL license. In any case if you just changed the requirement to pass patches back to you, to a request it would at least be possible to consider the open source situation.

Thu Mar 24 21:44:33 2011 http://nb.id.fedoraproject.org/ - Correspondence added

From:

Nick Bebout

I have gotten permission from David to license NTLM as GPL+ or Artistic (same as perl itself). I'll have a copy uploaded to my fedorapeople account shortly (and hopefully he'll upload it to CPAN). On Sat Mar 19 08:38:13 2011, SILASMONK wrote: Show quoted text

> David, > > I notice that you cite some of the code as being derived from fetchmail > which has a GPL license. As I understand it this means this should be > distributed under a GPL license. > > In any case if you just changed the requirement to pass patches back to > you, to a request it would at least be possible to consider the open > source situation.

Thu Mar 24 21:47:12 2011 http://nb.id.fedoraproject.org/ - Correspondence added

http://nb.fedorapeople.org/NTLM-1.06.tar.gz On Thu Mar 24 21:44:33 2011, http://nb.id.fedoraproject.org/ wrote: Show quoted text

> I have gotten permission from David to license NTLM as GPL+ or Artistic > (same as perl itself). > > I'll have a copy uploaded to my fedorapeople account shortly (and > hopefully he'll upload it to CPAN). > > On Sat Mar 19 08:38:13 2011, SILASMONK wrote:

> > David, > > > > I notice that you cite some of the code as being derived from fetchmail > > which has a GPL license. As I understand it this means this should be > > distributed under a GPL license. > > > > In any case if you just changed the requirement to pass patches back to > > you, to a request it would at least be possible to consider the open > > source situation.

>

Tue Mar 29 19:42:39 2011 NBEBOUT [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

RT-Send-CC:

BUZZ [...] cpan.org, nigel.metheringham [...] Dev.intechnology.co.uk

I also uploaded it (the relicensed tarball) to CPAN, although it's listed as an "unauthorized release" until/unless BUZZ uploads it to CPAN. This is now dual licensed as Artistic or GPLv1+ http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/N/NB/NBEBOUT/NTLM-1.06.tar.gz On Thu Mar 24 21:44:33 2011, http://nb.id.fedoraproject.org/ wrote: Show quoted text

> I have gotten permission from David to license NTLM as GPL+ or Artistic > (same as perl itself). > > I'll have a copy uploaded to my fedorapeople account shortly (and > hopefully he'll upload it to CPAN). > > On Sat Mar 19 08:38:13 2011, SILASMONK wrote:

> > David, > > > > I notice that you cite some of the code as being derived from fetchmail > > which has a GPL license. As I understand it this means this should be > > distributed under a GPL license. > > > > In any case if you just changed the requirement to pass patches back to > > you, to a request it would at least be possible to consider the open > > source situation.

>

Wed Apr 06 21:52:00 2011 NBEBOUT [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/N/NB/NBEBOUT/NTLM-1.06.tar.gz is now released as a regular release (I was made a comaintainer). Resolving this bug. On Tue Mar 29 19:42:39 2011, NBEBOUT wrote: Show quoted text

> I also uploaded it (the relicensed tarball) to CPAN, although it's > listed as an "unauthorized release" until/unless BUZZ uploads it to > CPAN. This is now dual licensed as Artistic or GPLv1+ > > http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/N/NB/NBEBOUT/NTLM-1.06.tar.gz > > On Thu Mar 24 21:44:33 2011, http://nb.id.fedoraproject.org/ wrote:

> > I have gotten permission from David to license NTLM as GPL+ or Artistic > > (same as perl itself). > > > > I'll have a copy uploaded to my fedorapeople account shortly (and > > hopefully he'll upload it to CPAN). > > > > On Sat Mar 19 08:38:13 2011, SILASMONK wrote:

> > > David, > > > > > > I notice that you cite some of the code as being derived from

fetchmail Show quoted text

> > > which has a GPL license. As I understand it this means this should be > > > distributed under a GPL license. > > > > > > In any case if you just changed the requirement to pass patches

back to Show quoted text

> > > you, to a request it would at least be possible to consider the open > > > source situation.

> >

Wed Apr 06 21:52:01 2011 NBEBOUT [...] cpan.org - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'

Wed Apr 06 21:52:02 2011 NBEBOUT [...] cpan.org - Given to NBEBOUT

Wed Apr 06 21:52:43 2011 NBEBOUT [...] cpan.org - Fixed in 1.06 added