Comment 26 for bug 6792

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:33:22 -0400
From: Nathanael Nerode <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
CC: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#248853: 3270: 5250 emulation code, all rights reserved

In case anyone was wondering, this is far from cleared up. :-(

 >Ahh, the horror continues.
 >
 >I would be happy to remove all of the Minolta-copyrighted code.
Perhaps the best choice.

Beat Rubischon has sent a nice message apparently granting permission to=20
use his code under "any license" as long as his name is preserved=20
(earlier in the bug trail) -- so for anything copyrighted by him, we're O=
K.

*UN*fortunately he apparently isn't the sole copyright holder of the=20
5250 code. Permission would be needed from Minolta, and I seriously=20
doubt he has the right to speak for them, even though he's an employee.=20
  I doubt he wants to go to the trouble of clearing this with Minolta's=20
legal department. :-(

 >As for the "what this means" paragraph in the Lineage file, that was=20
 >written
 >by an idiot, and should be removed (in fact, I thought I had removed=20
it >already).
Well, that's simple then. :-)

 >As for the Georgia Tech copyrighted code, I've been through this issue=20
 >with
 >them twice over the years, and the "public use" language was something=20
 >they
 >suggested. I don't know what it means, either. Shall I give it=20
 >another go
 >with them, to see if they will allow a different copyright notice? If=20
 >so,
 >what kinds of notices would be acceptable?

Ideally, the MIT/X11-like license already used by most of the code; that=20
would look like this:
 > Copyright =A9 1989 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA 3=
0332.
 > Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its=20
 >documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,=20
 >provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that=20
 >both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in=20
 >supporting documentation.

(It could also be consolidated with the other essentially identical=20
notices.)

If they don't like that, perhaps change it to "hereby granted to all=20
members of the public"? That's probably (hopefully) what they mean by=20
"public use".

Alternately, the Georgia Institute of Technology license appears to be=20
an acceptable and DFSG-free license (-legal, please verify -- I'm not=20
100% sure). That, changed for Georgia Tech Research, would look like thi=
s:
 > Copyright =A9 1989 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA 3=
0332.
 >All rights reserved except for those rights explicitly mentioned below.
 >Permission is granted to distribute freely or to modify and distribute=20
 >freely any materials and information contained herein as long as the=20
 >above copyright and all terms associated with it remain intact.

This appears to be a free, all-permissive license. (Debian-legal should=20
probably comment, of course; I am assuming that "freely" is not a no-fee=20
restriction but simply intended to make the permission broad, and that=20
"copy" is clearly implied by "distribute". Ideally the copyright=20
holders would clarify that my interpretation is the same as theirs.) If=20
Georgia Tech Research Corporation has some relationship with the Georgia=20
Institute of Technology, it might be more amenable to using a "familiar"=20
license statement.

If none of these options work for them, we really need to figure out=20
what they *want*. If we know *why* they don't like the standard license=20
used for the rest of 3270, debian-legal can probably recommend a license=20
tailored to suit their needs.