-----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 ---
- To: Paul TBBle Hampson <Paul.Hampson@Pobox.com>
- Subject: Re: Second Life Viewer artwork package for open source viewer
- From: Liana Holmberg <liana@lindenlab.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 08:45:04 -0700
- Message-id: <4641EC80.5080906@lindenlab.com>
- Reply-to: liana@lindenlab.com
- In-reply-to: <20070407130100.GA20561@keitarou>
- References: <20070407130100.GA20561@keitarou>
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 ---
- To: Paul TBBle Hampson <Paul.Hampson@Pobox.com>
- Subject: Re: Second Life Viewer artwork package for open source viewer
- From: Liana Holmberg <liana@lindenlab.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 07:39:36 -0700
- Message-id: <46696A28.9000004@lindenlab.com>
- Reply-to: liana@lindenlab.com
- In-reply-to: <20070522215949.GB9480@keitarou>
- References: <20070407130100.GA20561@keitarou> <4641EC80.5080906@lindenlab.com> <20070522215949.GB9480@keitarou>
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 ---
- To: Paul TBBle Hampson <Paul.Hampson@Pobox.com>
- Subject: Re: Second Life Viewer artwork package for open source viewer
- From: Liana Holmberg <liana@lindenlab.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:48:41 -0700
- Message-id: <46C34A89.2090308@lindenlab.com>
- Reply-to: liana@lindenlab.com
- In-reply-to: <20070407130100.GA20561@keitarou>
- References: <20070407130100.GA20561@keitarou>
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 ---
- To: Paul TBBle Hampson <Paul.Hampson@Pobox.com>
- Subject: Re: Second Life Viewer artwork package for open source viewer
- From: Liana Holmberg <liana@lindenlab.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:11:52 -0700
- Message-id: <46C5C8C8.4010104@lindenlab.com>
- Reply-to: liana@lindenlab.com
- In-reply-to: <20070817130812.GA12419@keitarou>
- References: <20070407130100.GA20561@keitarou> <46C34A89.2090308@lindenlab.com> <20070817130812.GA12419@keitarou>
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 ---
- To: Liana Holmberg <liana@lindenlab.com>
- Subject: Re: Second Life Viewer artwork package for open source viewer
- From: Paul TBBle Hampson <Paul.Hampson@Pobox.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 07:59:49 +1000
- Message-id: <20070522215949.GB9480@keitarou>
- In-reply-to: <4641EC80.5080906@lindenlab.com>
- References: <20070407130100.GA20561@keitarou> <4641EC80.5080906@lindenlab.com>
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: pgpRpHo53nYv7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Liana Holmberg <liana@lindenlab.com>
- Subject: Re: Second Life Viewer artwork package for open source viewer
- From: Paul TBBle Hampson <Paul.Hampson@Pobox.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:08:12 +1000
- Message-id: <20070817130812.GA12419@keitarou>
- In-reply-to: <46C34A89.2090308@lindenlab.com>
- References: <20070407130100.GA20561@keitarou> <46C34A89.2090308@lindenlab.com>
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: pgp5T3H3qMgRa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: licensing@lindenlab.com
- Subject: Second Life Viewer artwork package for open source viewer
- From: Paul TBBle Hampson <Paul.Hampson@Pobox.com>
- Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 23:01:00 +1000
- Message-id: <20070407130100.GA20561@keitarou>
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: pgppv1d5BTu66.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---