[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Adding secondlife viewer to Debian games SVN



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robin Cornelius wrote:
> Paul "TBBle" Hampson wrote:
>> Robin Cornelius wrote:

>>> The code is GPL licensed so can go into main.

>> Oh, hold that thought slightly. Has the license on the art tarball
>> changed? If not, then it can't go in main, since the art package is
>> non-free (CC-2 of some derivation).

>> It'd have to go in contrib.

> Ok there is no point emailing licensing at linden labs about this as all
> mails there seem to go to /dev/null.

> I will see if I can confirm the status and table this as an agenda point
> at the next open source meeting. That should be Thursday 22nd so if this
> is true its worth holding off an SVN commit until this is verified so we
> know if we can go main or contrib.

I've attached the email correspondences I've had with Liana
Holmberg, who's their IP-type person and the person behind
licensing@lindenlab.com, although after the initial response I used
her direct email.

(Sorry if they're out of order... Thunderbird has not 'open in new
window' option for folders that I can see. -_-)

I haven't heard anything about this since August. If you're able to
chase this up at the in-world meetings, that'd be great.

- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, B.Sc, LPI, MCSE
Very-later-year Asian Studies student, ANU
The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361)
Paul.Hampson@Pobox.com

Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did,
we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and
listening to repetitive music.
 -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/
- -----------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHQQUwexDuohKLFuARAhCDAJ4zKyhEw0h/o7KAQzi710aqkSeMVwCgnhZw
2xzALsSJb6bG/+tfBOr6MZM=
=hzQq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- Begin Message ---
Dear Paul Hampson,

I wanted to let you know I am working on answers to your questions below. Thanks for your patience. I hope to have a thorough response soon.

Best,
Liana Linden
Linden Lab Licensing

Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
Dear Linden Research Licensing person,

I'm currently attempting to package the open source
Second Life Viewer for Debian [1], and in packaging the
artwork zipfile, a couple of issues came up.

Firstly, it's under the Creative Commons 2.5 BY-SA license,
which is not DFSG-Free [2,3] and so cannot be distributed as
part of the Debian archive.

The Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA license [4] however appears to
be DFSG-Free, so would you be interested in relicensing the
artwork under that license, or another license?

I'm also a little concerned about the Distributing Second Life Software
page [5] as it doesn't seem to have any kind of middle ground between
"Unaltered binaries" and "Serious Modifications", neither of which I
feel accurately describes packages distributed in Debian (which are
all built from source, and have modifications as neccessary to make
them integrate as best possible with Debian as per Debian Policy) as
I'd prefer not to have to change the executable name as part of the
packaging process.

Also, the trademark statement in the artwork license concerns me a
little, as 74ba3584-58ea-9984-5b76-62d37942ab77.tga for example is
obviously a Linden trademark.

And in order to comply with the DFSG, it would need to be
derivable-from, and the trademark FAQ says that this is not allowed.

The direct solution I guess for the artwork issue would be to replace
any included Linden trademark images in the open-source distributions
with an icon that does the same thing but without including any of your
trademarks.

So I guess the question on this matter is, in the artwork distribution
(I'm looking at 1.14.1.1) is there any other material you consider to be
your trademark, so that I can investigate replacement thereof? (I
haven't yet looked through the j2c files yet...)

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/406335
[2] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
[3] http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary
[4] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
[5] http://secondlife.com/corporate/trademark/distribution.php


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Paul,
I'm sorry for the delay. We are actively working on this. Your request is on the radar and being tracked, and you will get a response as soon as we have one. Thanks again for your patience.
Best,
Liana

Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 08:45:04AM -0700, Liana Holmberg wrote:
  
Dear Paul Hampson,
    
  
I wanted to let you know I am working on answers to your questions
below. Thanks for your patience. I hope to have a thorough response
soon.
    
Hi. I don't want to rush you or seem impatient, but I've now solved
all the technical problems with the packaging, so this issue is now
the main blocker for starting to get slviewer sponsored into Debian.

I acknowledge that this may not be a particular priority for Linden,
but I just wanted to make sure I hadn't slipped completely off your
radar.

  

-- 
Liana Holmberg
P*M, OS Wrangler, IP Gadfly

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi, Paul.

I'm sorry it's taken us so long to get back to you. Thanks for your patience.

From what I see, your email boils down to 4 main questions. I can answer two of these right now, but the last two are still under discussion here.

Q: Is the Second Life source GPL compatible with Debian guidelines (DFSG-Free) considering that the artwork is marked CC 2.5 By-SA and/or the LL trademark policy?
A: This is up to Debian to decide, not Linden Lab.

Q: Is CC 3.0 By-SA compatible with DFSG-Free?
A: Again, this is up to Debian to decide, not Linden Lab.

Q: Does a Debian distribution count as a "serious modification" of the SL code? Is there a middle ground between "serious modification" and "unaltered binaries" that could be added to the distribution guidelines page?
A: We're looking at this. I'll get back to you when I know more.

Q: Since the LL and SL trademarks distributed with the source are going to conflict with other distribution licenses, can LL make it easier for people to replace the TMs with some other images? A: We've got some ideas about how to make this easier. I don't have any specifics right now, though it looks like this topic will be discussed at Thursday's open source meeting (https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Open_Source_Meeting/Agenda). Please come if you can.

If you have further questions, don't hesitate to contact me.

Thanks,
Liana Linden
Open Source / Licensing



Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
Dear Linden Research Licensing person,

I'm currently attempting to package the open source
Second Life Viewer for Debian [1], and in packaging the
artwork zipfile, a couple of issues came up.

Firstly, it's under the Creative Commons 2.5 BY-SA license,
which is not DFSG-Free [2,3] and so cannot be distributed as
part of the Debian archive.

The Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA license [4] however appears to
be DFSG-Free, so would you be interested in relicensing the
artwork under that license, or another license?

I'm also a little concerned about the Distributing Second Life Software
page [5] as it doesn't seem to have any kind of middle ground between
"Unaltered binaries" and "Serious Modifications", neither of which I
feel accurately describes packages distributed in Debian (which are
all built from source, and have modifications as neccessary to make
them integrate as best possible with Debian as per Debian Policy) as
I'd prefer not to have to change the executable name as part of the
packaging process.

Also, the trademark statement in the artwork license concerns me a
little, as 74ba3584-58ea-9984-5b76-62d37942ab77.tga for example is
obviously a Linden trademark.

And in order to comply with the DFSG, it would need to be
derivable-from, and the trademark FAQ says that this is not allowed.

The direct solution I guess for the artwork issue would be to replace
any included Linden trademark images in the open-source distributions
with an icon that does the same thing but without including any of your
trademarks.

So I guess the question on this matter is, in the artwork distribution
(I'm looking at 1.14.1.1) is there any other material you consider to be
your trademark, so that I can investigate replacement thereof? (I
haven't yet looked through the j2c files yet...)

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/406335
[2] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
[3] http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary
[4] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
[5] http://secondlife.com/corporate/trademark/distribution.php



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for the additional clarification, Paul.
It's on my list to look into whether to upgrade to CC BY-SA v.3, but I haven't any estimate of when that will shift to the top of the pile. When issues like this are raised by community members, they get recorded, discussed and prioritized. So, never fear, your great questions have not gone into a black hole. Feel free to ping me about this or other licensing issues in the future.
Cheers,
Liana



Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 11:48:41AM -0700, Liana Holmberg wrote:
  
Hi, Paul.
    
  
I'm sorry it's taken us so long to get back to you. Thanks for your patience.
    
That's OK, thankyou for your reply.

  
From what I see, your email boils down to 4 main questions. I can answer two of these right now, but the last two are still under discussion here.
    
  
Q: Is the Second Life source GPL compatible with Debian guidelines (DFSG-Free) considering that the artwork is marked CC 2.5 By-SA and/or the LL trademark policy?
A: This is up to Debian to decide, not Linden Lab.
    
  
Q: Is CC 3.0 By-SA compatible with DFSG-Free?
A: Again, this is up to Debian to decide, not Linden Lab.
    
Those were more intended as background material if you wished it.

The main question in that area was, would LL be interested in
relicensing the artwork package under the CC 3 BY-SA or similar license,
given that the only motivation I can offer for such a change is that it
would (probably, I still have to get it sponsored and past the
ftp-masters) allow the SLViewer to be distributed in the Debian archive.

  

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 08:45:04AM -0700, Liana Holmberg wrote:
> Dear Paul Hampson,

> I wanted to let you know I am working on answers to your questions
> below. Thanks for your patience. I hope to have a thorough response
> soon.

Hi. I don't want to rush you or seem impatient, but I've now solved
all the technical problems with the packaging, so this issue is now
the main blocker for starting to get slviewer sponsored into Debian.

I acknowledge that this may not be a particular priority for Linden,
but I just wanted to make sure I hadn't slipped completely off your
radar.

-- 
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, Paul.Hampson@Pobox.com

Shorter .sig for a more eco-friendly paperless office.

Attachment: pgpiZK8ZVZ7aZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 11:48:41AM -0700, Liana Holmberg wrote:
> Hi, Paul.

> I'm sorry it's taken us so long to get back to you. Thanks for your patience.

That's OK, thankyou for your reply.

> From what I see, your email boils down to 4 main questions. I can answer two of these right now, but the last two are still under discussion here.

> Q: Is the Second Life source GPL compatible with Debian guidelines (DFSG-Free) considering that the artwork is marked CC 2.5 By-SA and/or the LL trademark policy?
> A: This is up to Debian to decide, not Linden Lab.

> Q: Is CC 3.0 By-SA compatible with DFSG-Free?
> A: Again, this is up to Debian to decide, not Linden Lab.

Those were more intended as background material if you wished it.

The main question in that area was, would LL be interested in
relicensing the artwork package under the CC 3 BY-SA or similar license,
given that the only motivation I can offer for such a change is that it
would (probably, I still have to get it sponsored and past the
ftp-masters) allow the SLViewer to be distributed in the Debian archive.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, B.Sc, LPI, MCSE
Very-later-year Asian Studies student, ANU
The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361)
Paul.Hampson@Pobox.com

Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did,
we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and
listening to repetitive music.
 -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/
-----------------------------------------------------------

Attachment: pgpaDheTgLTj4.pgp
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dear Linden Research Licensing person,

I'm currently attempting to package the open source
Second Life Viewer for Debian [1], and in packaging the
artwork zipfile, a couple of issues came up.

Firstly, it's under the Creative Commons 2.5 BY-SA license,
which is not DFSG-Free [2,3] and so cannot be distributed as
part of the Debian archive.

The Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA license [4] however appears to
be DFSG-Free, so would you be interested in relicensing the
artwork under that license, or another license?

I'm also a little concerned about the Distributing Second Life Software
page [5] as it doesn't seem to have any kind of middle ground between
"Unaltered binaries" and "Serious Modifications", neither of which I
feel accurately describes packages distributed in Debian (which are
all built from source, and have modifications as neccessary to make
them integrate as best possible with Debian as per Debian Policy) as
I'd prefer not to have to change the executable name as part of the
packaging process.

Also, the trademark statement in the artwork license concerns me a
little, as 74ba3584-58ea-9984-5b76-62d37942ab77.tga for example is
obviously a Linden trademark.

And in order to comply with the DFSG, it would need to be
derivable-from, and the trademark FAQ says that this is not allowed.

The direct solution I guess for the artwork issue would be to replace
any included Linden trademark images in the open-source distributions
with an icon that does the same thing but without including any of your
trademarks.

So I guess the question on this matter is, in the artwork distribution
(I'm looking at 1.14.1.1) is there any other material you consider to be
your trademark, so that I can investigate replacement thereof? (I
haven't yet looked through the j2c files yet...)

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/406335
[2] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
[3] http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary
[4] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
[5] http://secondlife.com/corporate/trademark/distribution.php

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, B.Sc, LPI, MCSE
On-hiatus Asian Studies student, ANU
The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361)
Paul.Hampson@Pobox.Com

Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did,
we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and
listening to repetitive music.
 -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/
-----------------------------------------------------------

Attachment: pgpzj3PXNDvZL.pgp
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---

Reply to: