fedora-extras-list@redhat.com
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A licensing question

Subject: Re: A licensing question
From: Wart
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:26:28 -0700
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Victor Skovorodnikov wrote:
> Hi Jef,
>  
>  Thank you for clarifying.  I think that the link you've provided refers to 
> source code.  The source code is mine and I am perfectly willing to provide 
> whatever (commercial included) license you require.  But, do images also fall 
> into the "Open Source" category?   While there is a lot of explanation of 
> what "Open Source" is, it talks about source code I think, not images.
>  
>  Can the images be licensed for non-commercial purposes while the source code 
> can be for commercial as that article indicates?  After all, it is the code 
> that would form the basis of my package, not the images

Unfortunately, no.  non-commercial clauses are just as unsuitable for
images used in Fedora packages as non-commercial clauses for source code.

I've contacted the fedora art list and mentioned the issue of finding
freely redistributable artwork for game packages, specifically yours.
While nobody seemed to object to the idea of using the Fedora Art group
to produce game images, there has not yet been any volunteers to do any
of the actual work either.

- --Mike

>  
>  Thanks,
>  Victor.
> 
> Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: On 4/18/06, Victor Skovorodnikov  
> wrote:
> 
>> Would you please elaborate on as to why it is unacceptable?  I though
>>Fedora is, by definitiion, non-commercial.
> 
> 
> While the Fedora project itself does not monetarily profit from the
> codebase, the project endeavors to protect the right/freedom of other
> people to use the sourcecode base as the basis for a commercial
> endeavor.  For example its perfectly acceptable for 3rd party vendors
> to commercially sell mediasets(with the appropriate warranty) of the
> fedora core and extras repositories. By including some packages which
> can not be included in such mediasets, you have greatly complicated
> vendor involvement.
> 
> I suggest you become more familiar with the OSI definition of "open
> source" as a general guiding principle as to what licensing terms are
> acceptable.
> http://opensource.org/docs/definition.html
> Non-commercial clauses fail OSI's "No Discrimination Against Fields of 
> Endeavor"
> principle and thus unacceptable.
> 
> -jef
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFERVmDDeYlPfs40g8RArSuAJ42WznFGCvMumzYDUNiU+pXLwh9dgCeNe3F
BcEyg2oBRQBQu4q/ROAgKL4=
=Rcpt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>