Exceptions restricting program name are compatible with "LGPLv2 with exceptions", correct?
Hi,
I would like to package a window manager named Notion. It is a fork of the Ion(tm) window manager. Ion(tm) is released under the LGPLv2.1 with an addendum that restricts derivative works from calling said works Ion(tm) or using a name that implies being apart of the Ion(tm) project. The nature of these restrictions appears to be inline with the GNU free software philosophy, as is stated in the following paragraph:
However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.
-- "What is Free Software?" (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
The addendum is included below for reference. The complete license, including addendum, is available here: https://github.com/jsbackus/notion/blob/master/LICENSE
Given that the software I would like to package is released under a different name, I do not see any conflicts with Fedora's licensing guidelines. Am I correct in my interpretations? Is this license compatible with Fedora's "LGPLv2 with exceptions" license?
Thank you in advance for your time and any clarification you can provide.
Regards, Jeff
-= Begin License Addendum =- Copyright (c) Tuomo Valkonen 1999-2009.
Unless otherwise indicated in components taken from elsewhere, this software is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 ("LGPL", reproduced below), extended and modified with the following terms:
If the name Ion(tm) or other names that can be associated with the Ion project are used to distribute this software, then:
- A version that does not significantly differ from one of the copyright holder's releases, must be provided by default.
- Versions not based on the copyright holder's latest release (on the corresponding "branch", such as Ion3(tm)), must within 28 days of this release, be prominently marked as (potentially) obsolete and unsupported.
- Significantly altered versions may be provided only if the user explicitly requests for those modifications to be applied, and is prominently notified that the software is no longer considered the standard version, and is not supported by the copyright holder. The version string displayed by the program must describe these modifications and the "support void" status.
Versions for which the above conditions are not satisfied, must be renamed so that they can not be associated with the Ion project, their executables must be given names that do not conflict with the copyright holder's version, and neither the copyright holder nor the Ion project may be referred to for support.
In the text of sections 0-2, 4-12, and 14-16 of the LGPL, "this License" is to be understood to refer to the LGPL extended with these terms and, where applicable, possible similar terms related to the names of other works forming a whole. Sections 3 and 13 of the LGPL are void. Where contradictory, these additional terms take precedence over the LGPL.
End of terms.
Explanations
Trademarks: With the terms above primarily appealing to copyright law, should any of the indicated trademarks be found invalid, does not excuse you from the conditions imposed by those terms. The use of these names in contexts other than redistribution of this software and modifications, is outside the scope of the terms above, and governed by applicable trademark or other laws.
With regard to modules and other extensions to Ion(tm), the permission is hereby granted to use "Ion" as part of the name, provided that it occurs in a form suggesting that the work is supported by neither the copyright holder nor the Ion project: "Foo for Ion" instead of "Ion Foo", etc.
Significant change: Bug fixes are insignificant as additions. Basic changes that are needed to install or run the software on a target platform, are insignificant. Additionally, basic/small configuration changes to better integrate the software with the target platform, without obstructing the standard behaviour, are insignificant. Everything else is significant, unless expressly declared otherwise by the copyright holder.
Distributions: For example, suppose an aggregate distribution of software provides an `installpkg` command for installing packages. Then the action `installpkg ion3` (resp. `installpkg ion`) should provide the latest release of Ion3 (resp. the latest stable release) 28 days from release date at the latest, or prominently notify the user that the provided version is (likely to be) obsolete and unsupported. The latest release being provided by default, or prominently appearing in a listing, constitutes prominent marking of earlier releases as obsolete. Specific versions (including modified versions) may be provided if the user explicitly requests for those, within the constraints set above.
The intent of these terms is to curb the power that "distributions", as the primary sources of software for many users, have in defining what is perceived as Ion. By providing significantly modified versions and out-dated development snapshots without prominently mentioning this fact, they do not present the work in a light that the author can agree with, and create a burden of dealing with (new) users seeking for support for such versions.
-= End License Addendum =-
On 11/30/2013 03:08 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
Hi,
I would like to package a window manager named Notion. It is a fork of the Ion(tm) window manager. Ion(tm) is released under the LGPLv2.1 with an addendum that restricts derivative works from calling said works Ion(tm) or using a name that implies being apart of the Ion(tm) project.
These sorts of licenses are usually a mess to figure out. It would help if we knew whether Ion considers Notion to be a "name[] that can be associated with the Ion project".
~tom
== ¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> OSAS @ Red Hat University Outreach || Fedora Special Projects || Fedora Legal
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your response!
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
These sorts of licenses are usually a mess to figure out. It would help if we knew whether Ion considers Notion to be a "name[] that can be associated with the Ion project".
Yes, I can appreciate your apprehension. I found the following thread on the notion devel list that discusses receiving an e-mail and relaxed license from Tuomo Valkonen (developer of Ion) for the Notion project: http://sourceforge.net/p/notion/mailman/message/28377299/
This would indicate to me that Tuomo considers Notion sufficiently distinct. Is this good enough?
Regards, Jeff
On 12/02/2013 04:22 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your response!
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Tom Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com mailto:tcallawa@redhat.com> wrote:
These sorts of licenses are usually a mess to figure out. It would help if we knew whether Ion considers Notion to be a "name[] that can be associated with the Ion project".Yes, I can appreciate your apprehension. I found the following thread on the notion devel list that discusses receiving an e-mail and relaxed license from Tuomo Valkonen (developer of Ion) for the Notion project: http://sourceforge.net/p/notion/mailman/message/28377299/
This would indicate to me that Tuomo considers Notion sufficiently distinct. Is this good enough?
I don't think so. The email quoted from Tuomo is two years older than the repost, so it is unlikely that it is in the context of Notion (also, he never mentions Notion in it). I'm guessing he sent it out to the Ion mailing list independently of Notion's existence (possibly before Notion came about? not sure on the timeline), but we cannot assume it implies acceptability of the Notion name.
Really, someone needs to ask politely. :)
~tom
== ¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> OSAS @ Red Hat University Outreach || Fedora Special Projects || Fedora Legal
Hi Tom,
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
I don't think so. The email quoted from Tuomo is two years older than the repost, so it is unlikely that it is in the context of Notion (also, he never mentions Notion in it). I'm guessing he sent it out to the Ion mailing list independently of Notion's existence (possibly before Notion came about? not sure on the timeline), but we cannot assume it implies acceptability of the Notion name.
Really, someone needs to ask politely. :)
So handwavey isn't preferred in legal realms? :)
I spoke with upstream. They provided some interesting background but nothing explicit. They did think it was worthwhile to contact Tuomo for clarification. Their comments made me think he may be willing to consider a vanilla LGPL.
Since Tuomo is busy and has indicated in the past that he isn't interested in dealing with Ion-related topics, I'd like to minimize the amount of his time that I have to take up. So to be clear, what is required to sufficient proof of his consent to change licenses and/or at least bless the Notion project? Is a simple e-mail enough? Is a PGP/GPG signature required? I was thinking of asking Tuomo to: ... grant permission to the Notion project to distribute any and all Ion(tm)-related material, including but not limited to primary and ancillary code and documentation, under the official LGPL version 2.1 as specified at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
And if he doesn't agree to the above, to at least: ... agree that the Notion name is sufficiently different from the Ion(tm) name as to be in compliance with the Ion(tm) license.
Are these sufficient? Are there other loose ends I should try to tie up?
I apologize if I'm belaboring the point - I don't really "have a setting" between handwavey and pedantic. :)
Thanks again for your time and help!
Regards, Jeff
On 12/03/2013 07:37 AM, Jeff Backus wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Tom Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com mailto:tcallawa@redhat.com> wrote:
I don't think so. The email quoted from Tuomo is two years older than the repost, so it is unlikely that it is in the context of Notion (also, he never mentions Notion in it). I'm guessing he sent it out to the Ion mailing list independently of Notion's existence (possibly before Notion came about? not sure on the timeline), but we cannot assume it implies acceptability of the Notion name. Really, someone needs to ask politely. :)So handwavey isn't preferred in legal realms? :)
I spoke with upstream. They provided some interesting background but nothing explicit. They did think it was worthwhile to contact Tuomo for clarification. Their comments made me think he may be willing to consider a vanilla LGPL.
Since Tuomo is busy and has indicated in the past that he isn't interested in dealing with Ion-related topics, I'd like to minimize the amount of his time that I have to take up. So to be clear, what is required to sufficient proof of his consent to change licenses and/or at least bless the Notion project? Is a simple e-mail enough? Is a PGP/GPG signature required? I was thinking of asking Tuomo to: ... grant permission to the Notion project to distribute any and all Ion(tm)-related material, including but not limited to primary and ancillary code and documentation, under the official LGPL version 2.1 as specified at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
And if he doesn't agree to the above, to at least: ... agree that the Notion name is sufficiently different from the Ion(tm) name as to be in compliance with the Ion(tm) license.
Are these sufficient? Are there other loose ends I should try to tie up?
I apologize if I'm belaboring the point - I don't really "have a setting" between handwavey and pedantic. :)
Email that comes from an address that is "known" to be Tuomo is sufficient, GPG sig is nice to have but not necessary. Either of those two options will suffice here, the first is preferred because it will resolve the license issue entirely, while the second will still require us to consider whether the Ion license (in the Notion context) is Free.
~tom
== ¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> OSAS @ Red Hat University Outreach || Fedora Special Projects || Fedora Legal
Hi Tom,
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
Email that comes from an address that is "known" to be Tuomo is sufficient, GPG sig is nice to have but not necessary. Either of those two options will suffice here, the first is preferred because it will resolve the license issue entirely, while the second will still require us to consider whether the Ion license (in the Notion context) is Free.
Sounds good, thanks! I'll let you know what I find out. It may take a few days for me to get the e-mail out and get a response.
Regards, Jeff
-
Jeff Backus -
Tom Callaway