Bug #560181 correctly points out that although mysql's code is distributed under GPL, the associated documentation is not. The reporter proposes classifying it as "Redistributable, no modification permitted", but I thought I'd ask this list about opinions on the best license tag for it. The doc license looks like this:
Copyright 1997-2008 MySQL AB, 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
This documentation is NOT distributed under a GPL license. Use of this documentation is subject to the following terms: You may create a printed copy of this documentation solely for your own personal use. Conversion to other formats is allowed as long as the actual content is not altered or edited in any way. You shall not publish or distribute this documentation in any form or on any media, except if you distribute the documentation in a manner similar to how Sun disseminates it (that is, electronically for download on a Web site with the software) or on a CD-ROM or similar medium, provided however that the documentation is disseminated together with the software on the same medium. Any other use, such as any dissemination of printed copies or use of this documentation, in whole or in part, in another publication, requires the prior written consent from an authorized representative of Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sun Microsystems, Inc. and MySQL AB reserve any and all rights to this documentation not expressly granted above.
Also: I am thinking of putting the docs into a separate -docs subpackage with its own License tag, rather than confusing matters by labeling the whole package with two very different tags. Any objections to that? Could the "with the software" bit above be read to prohibit such a scheme? Plan C would be to drop the docs entirely and just offer a link to mysql's website, but I don't like that very much ...
regards, tom lane
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 11:47:42AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Bug #560181 correctly points out that although mysql's code is distributed under GPL, the associated documentation is not. The reporter proposes classifying it as "Redistributable, no modification permitted", but I thought I'd ask this list about opinions on the best license tag for it. The doc license looks like this:
Copyright 1997-2008 MySQL AB, 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
This documentation is NOT distributed under a GPL license. Use of this documentation is subject to the following terms: You may create a printed copy of this documentation solely for your own personal use. Conversion to other formats is allowed as long as the actual content is not altered or edited in any way. You shall not publish or distribute this documentation in any form or on any media, except if you distribute the documentation in a manner similar to how Sun disseminates it (that is, electronically for download on a Web site with the software) or on a CD-ROM or similar medium, provided however that the documentation is disseminated together with the software on the same medium. Any other use, such as any dissemination of printed copies or use of this documentation, in whole or in part, in another publication, requires the prior written consent from an authorized representative of Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sun Microsystems, Inc. and MySQL AB reserve any and all rights to this documentation not expressly granted above.
These terms seem not to satisfy current Fedora licensing guidelines, if I'm not mistaken. Spot?
- RF
I wrote:
Bug #560181 correctly points out that although mysql's code is distributed under GPL, the associated documentation is not. The reporter proposes classifying it as "Redistributable, no modification permitted", but I thought I'd ask this list about opinions on the best license tag for it. The doc license looks like this:
Copyright 1997-2008 MySQL AB, 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
This documentation is NOT distributed under a GPL license. Use of this documentation is subject to the following terms: You may create a printed copy of this documentation solely for your own personal use. Conversion to other formats is allowed as long as the actual content is not altered or edited in any way. You shall not publish or distribute this documentation in any form or on any media, except if you distribute the documentation in a manner similar to how Sun disseminates it (that is, electronically for download on a Web site with the software) or on a CD-ROM or similar medium, provided however that the documentation is disseminated together with the software on the same medium. Any other use, such as any dissemination of printed copies or use of this documentation, in whole or in part, in another publication, requires the prior written consent from an authorized representative of Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sun Microsystems, Inc. and MySQL AB reserve any and all rights to this documentation not expressly granted above.
to which Richard Fontana replied:
These terms seem not to satisfy current Fedora licensing guidelines, if I'm not mistaken. Spot?
Ping? I'm not sure if the above constitutes a final decision or not. If it does, must I edit the tarball to remove the offending file, or is it sufficient to not install it?
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 08:56:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Bug #560181 correctly points out that although mysql's code is distributed under GPL, the associated documentation is not. The reporter proposes classifying it as "Redistributable, no modification permitted", but I thought I'd ask this list about opinions on the best license tag for it. The doc license looks like this:
Copyright 1997-2008 MySQL AB, 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
This documentation is NOT distributed under a GPL license. Use of this documentation is subject to the following terms: You may create a printed copy of this documentation solely for your own personal use. Conversion to other formats is allowed as long as the actual content is not altered or edited in any way. You shall not publish or distribute this documentation in any form or on any media, except if you distribute the documentation in a manner similar to how Sun disseminates it (that is, electronically for download on a Web site with the software) or on a CD-ROM or similar medium, provided however that the documentation is disseminated together with the software on the same medium. Any other use, such as any dissemination of printed copies or use of this documentation, in whole or in part, in another publication, requires the prior written consent from an authorized representative of Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sun Microsystems, Inc. and MySQL AB reserve any and all rights to this documentation not expressly granted above.
to which Richard Fontana replied:
These terms seem not to satisfy current Fedora licensing guidelines, if I'm not mistaken. Spot?
Ping? I'm not sure if the above constitutes a final decision or not. If it does, must I edit the tarball to remove the offending file, or is it sufficient to not install it?
I know Spot has a number of IRL pressures going on, so let me see if I can help. Documentation source of this kind that is nonmodifiable does not meet Fedora licensing guidelines, and cannot be included in the distribution.
There might be a (somewhat ugly and unproductive) argument to be made that we don't technically need to strip out the docs source itself because the distribution in the SRPM only is unmodified and in an electronic form similar to that used by Sun. But that would dodge the fact that just making those docs available in the SRPM, even unbuilt in the binary RPM, gives them a false appearance of acceptability when they are in fact non-free.
I'd recommend stripping them out of the tarball using the methods shown in the packaging guidelines, and then including your own %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README-docs.Fedora indicating the licensing of the docs is nonfree, and including a web address for the official docs.
Couldn't Sun just as well protect the sanctity of their official documentation by tying their requirements to the use of the MySQL trademarks, so that if someone wanted/needed to alter the docs for some reason, they were required to relinquish use of those trademarks? I think that would allow them to be more fully freed and then we could include them in the Fedora repository.
Spot, Richard, if you see any place above where I'm offbase, please jump in.
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:45:59AM -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
I know Spot has a number of IRL pressures going on, so let me see if I can help. Documentation source of this kind that is nonmodifiable does not meet Fedora licensing guidelines, and cannot be included in the distribution.
There might be a (somewhat ugly and unproductive) argument to be made that we don't technically need to strip out the docs source itself because the distribution in the SRPM only is unmodified and in an electronic form similar to that used by Sun. But that would dodge the fact that just making those docs available in the SRPM, even unbuilt in the binary RPM, gives them a false appearance of acceptability when they are in fact non-free.
I'd recommend stripping them out of the tarball using the methods shown in the packaging guidelines, and then including your own %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README-docs.Fedora indicating the licensing of the docs is nonfree, and including a web address for the official docs.
Couldn't Sun just as well protect the sanctity of their official documentation by tying their requirements to the use of the MySQL trademarks, so that if someone wanted/needed to alter the docs for some reason, they were required to relinquish use of those trademarks? I think that would allow them to be more fully freed and then we could include them in the Fedora repository.
Spot, Richard, if you see any place above where I'm offbase, please jump in.
Looking at this more closely, I am in agreement with Paul. The documentation should be removed from the source tarball as it does not meet Fedora legal guidelines (which apply to source as well as binary distribution). This is clear because the MySQL documentation license is more restrictive even than the Open Publication License with "options". See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Documentation_Licenses
"Paul W. Frields" stickster@gmail.com writes:
I'd recommend stripping them out of the tarball using the methods shown in the packaging guidelines, and then including your own %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README-docs.Fedora indicating the licensing of the docs is nonfree, and including a web address for the official docs.
Thanks, will do it that way. (BTW, I assume all this holds true for the RHEL distribution as well.)
Couldn't Sun just as well protect the sanctity of their official documentation by tying their requirements to the use of the MySQL trademarks, so that if someone wanted/needed to alter the docs for some reason, they were required to relinquish use of those trademarks? I think that would allow them to be more fully freed and then we could include them in the Fedora repository.
The weird license on the docs is not really Sun's doing. It dates back to when MySQL AB was still trying to figure out how to make money off an open-source database; one of their answers was to charge for copies of the documentation. Now that Oracle owns it all, any change would require Oracle adopting an enlightened attitude towards open source, which I'm not planning to hold my breath for.
regards, tom lane
On 02/20/2010 12:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
"Paul W. Frields" stickster@gmail.com writes:
I'd recommend stripping them out of the tarball using the methods shown in the packaging guidelines, and then including your own %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README-docs.Fedora indicating the licensing of the docs is nonfree, and including a web address for the official docs.
Thanks, will do it that way. (BTW, I assume all this holds true for the RHEL distribution as well.)
Generally, yes.
Thanks to Paul and Richard for jumping on this one.
~spot
-
Paul W. Frields -
Richard Fontana -
Tom Callaway -
Tom Lane