1:45 p.m.
Hi all,
I am working on a package for the sFizz project which provides a VST3
plugin, among others. The VST3 SDK from Steinberg is licensed under a
compatible license, but imposes extra "guidelines" which has previously
seen it be inadmissible in the Fedora repos and lead to some considerable
effort to work around. One of the developers of sFizz asked the question on
the Steinberg Forum:
https://forums.steinberg.net/t/vst-3-sdk-licensing-faq/201638/20?u=jpcima
Which contains relevant links, however I also received other information
from another source that stated:
Section 7: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further
restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term.
Yet someone else countered this with:
Section 7 also contains a list of non-permissive additional terms that
*are* allowed to be imposed on top of the gpl
Can someone comment on this please, I'd prefer not to have to strip the VST
plugin as it is the preferred format and would take considerable effort to
do so.
Pete
2:24 p.m.
IMO, a requirement that a logo be included is not an additional restriction
permitted by the GPLv3. Under Section 7(b), it is not a "legal notice" (a
trademark is not a notice, it's branding) or an "author attribution"
(copyright authorship and branding are entirely different things). It is
effectively the opposite of what Sections 7(c), (d) and (e) permit, forcing
the misrepresentation of the product if someone has modified the code (the
logo indicates that the product is the authentic original software but it
may not be if it's been modified), it is forcing using a name for publicity
purposes, and it is requiring the use of a trademark, not prohibiting it.
Pam Chestek
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 2:48 PM Pete Savage <psavage(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I am working on a package for the sFizz project which provides a VST3
plugin, among others. The VST3 SDK from Steinberg is licensed under a
compatible license, but imposes extra "guidelines" which has previously
seen it be inadmissible in the Fedora repos and lead to some considerable
effort to work around. One of the developers of sFizz asked the question on
the Steinberg Forum:
https://forums.steinberg.net/t/vst-3-sdk-licensing-faq/201638/20?u=jpcima
Which contains relevant links, however I also received other information
from another source that stated:
Section 7: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within
the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains
a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term.
Yet someone else countered this with:
Section 7 also contains a list of non-permissive additional terms that
*are* allowed to be imposed on top of the gpl
Can someone comment on this please, I'd prefer not to have to strip the
VST plugin as it is the preferred format and would take considerable effort
to do so.
Pete
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
1:46 p.m.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 11:33 AM Pamela Chestek <pchestek(a)gmail.com> wrote:
IMO, a requirement that a logo be included is not an additional restriction permitted by
the GPLv3. Under Section 7(b), it is not a "legal notice" (a trademark is not a
notice, it's branding) or an "author attribution" (copyright authorship and
branding are entirely different things). It is effectively the opposite of what Sections
7(c), (d) and (e) permit, forcing the misrepresentation of the product if someone has
modified the code (the logo indicates that the product is the authentic original software
but it may not be if it's been modified), it is forcing using a name for publicity
purposes, and it is requiring the use of a trademark, not prohibiting it.
IANAL, but it's effectively an advertising clause, though I'm not sure if
it's
part of the license of the code or the name. The GPL specifically
doesn't cover licensing the name itself, so trademark rules can be
whatever.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
4:28 p.m.
To me, this seems a bit different from the usual advertising clauses,
which usually say something like “this notice must be reproduced in all
copies and derivative works etc etc”.
https://developer.steinberg.help/display/VST/Steinberg+VST+usage+guidelines
The restrictions demand that “whenever ‘VST’ is used, or the SDK is used
to create a product, or when the SDK is included”, the logo must be
displayed on all web pages related to the product, all documentation for
the product, and any physical package for the product.
My not-a-lawyer worry would be that, if these restrictions are
enforceable in combination with GPLv3, “Fedora Linux” could be found to
be “the product” here.
I’m the maintainer of the giada package in Fedora and the instigator of
the original thread on VST3 SDK licensing. I’m very interested to see
the final determination on whether or not Section 7 of the GPLv3
provides an “escape hatch” such that VST3 could be acceptable in Fedora
after all.
– Ben Beasley
On 7/29/21 2:46 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 11:33 AM Pamela Chestek <pchestek(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> IMO, a requirement that a logo be included is not an additional restriction
permitted by the GPLv3. Under Section 7(b), it is not a "legal notice" (a
trademark is not a notice, it's branding) or an "author attribution"
(copyright authorship and branding are entirely different things). It is effectively the
opposite of what Sections 7(c), (d) and (e) permit, forcing the misrepresentation of the
product if someone has modified the code (the logo indicates that the product is the
authentic original software but it may not be if it's been modified), it is forcing
using a name for publicity purposes, and it is requiring the use of a trademark, not
prohibiting it.
>>
>
> IANAL, but it's effectively an advertising clause, though I'm not sure if
it's
> part of the license of the code or the name. The GPL specifically
> doesn't cover licensing the name itself, so trademark rules can be
> whatever.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
> _______________________________________________
> legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>
1009
days inactive
1010
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Ben Beasley -
Neal Gompa -
Pamela Chestek -
Pete Savage