I've made some customizations to OpenID selector code ( http://code.google.com/p/openid-selector/) and combined it with MediaWiki OpenID extension, you can see the result here: http://www.sharingbuttons.org/Special:OpenIDLogin
Iwant to check it in back into the repository, but it uses "New BSD License" and I wonder if it's OK to do so.
Otherwise I'll write one from scratch and GPL it.
Sergey
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Sergey Chernyshev sergey.chernyshev@gmail.com wrote:
I've made some customizations to OpenID selector code ( http://code.google.com/p/openid-selector/) and combined it with MediaWiki OpenID extension, you can see the result here: http://www.sharingbuttons.org/Special:OpenIDLogin
Iwant to check it in back into the repository, but it uses "New BSD License" and I wonder if it's OK to do so.
Otherwise I'll write one from scratch and GPL it.
The three-clause BSD license is universally considered a free software license and is certainly acceptable for checking into our repository. Moreover, it's GPL-compatible. The license permits you to take any BSD-licensed software that you possess and relicense it as GPL (or under any other compatible license, such as "totally proprietary (plus liability/attribution requirements for redistributors)"). You certainly wouldn't need to rewrite anything.
However, it seems to include a number of trademarked, copyrighted logos. In other words, it's not really BSD-licensed. I don't know if the logos should be in the repo. Even if we're not going to worry about copyright on logos (à la Firefox), I'd think that the current extension might be a trademark violation, in that users might reasonably think your site is part of or endorsed by Google/AOL/etc. IANAL, of course.
Great - thanks for the license clarification, I don't think I was too excited to re-implement selector.
Good point about logos - so what do we do with this? How do we make sure all those logos (including OpenID, BTW) are properly licensed? I don't think original developer thought about that either when he licensed it under BSD license.
Sergey
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.comSimetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Sergey Chernyshev sergey.chernyshev@gmail.com wrote:
I've made some customizations to OpenID selector code ( http://code.google.com/p/openid-selector/) and combined it with
MediaWiki
OpenID extension, you can see the result here: http://www.sharingbuttons.org/Special:OpenIDLogin
Iwant to check it in back into the repository, but it uses "New BSD
License"
and I wonder if it's OK to do so.
Otherwise I'll write one from scratch and GPL it.
The three-clause BSD license is universally considered a free software license and is certainly acceptable for checking into our repository. Moreover, it's GPL-compatible. The license permits you to take any BSD-licensed software that you possess and relicense it as GPL (or under any other compatible license, such as "totally proprietary (plus liability/attribution requirements for redistributors)"). You certainly wouldn't need to rewrite anything.
However, it seems to include a number of trademarked, copyrighted logos. In other words, it's not really BSD-licensed. I don't know if the logos should be in the repo. Even if we're not going to worry about copyright on logos (à la Firefox), I'd think that the current extension might be a trademark violation, in that users might reasonably think your site is part of or endorsed by Google/AOL/etc. IANAL, of course.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hoi, Be glad that the original developer chose the BSD license. From a perspective of being able to cooperate widely, the BSD license is vastly superior to the GPL. It is for this reason that I urge you to develop first the BSD software and back-port to a GPL'd version. Then again as long as you solely work on the code, you as the copyright holder are entitled to do this anyway. When a second person shares code it starts to become problematic.
The notion that trade marked logos are problematic is true for a specific strict understanding of the GPL license as is prevalent under people who adhere to the Debian way of thinking. It is definetly not universally shared and it is a travesty that brought us Iceweasel. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/24 Sergey Chernyshev sergey.chernyshev@gmail.com
Great - thanks for the license clarification, I don't think I was too excited to re-implement selector.
Good point about logos - so what do we do with this? How do we make sure all those logos (including OpenID, BTW) are properly licensed? I don't think original developer thought about that either when he licensed it under BSD license.
Sergey
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com Simetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com< Simetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com Simetrical%252Bwikilist@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Sergey Chernyshev sergey.chernyshev@gmail.com wrote:
I've made some customizations to OpenID selector code ( http://code.google.com/p/openid-selector/) and combined it with
MediaWiki
OpenID extension, you can see the result here: http://www.sharingbuttons.org/Special:OpenIDLogin
Iwant to check it in back into the repository, but it uses "New BSD
License"
and I wonder if it's OK to do so.
Otherwise I'll write one from scratch and GPL it.
The three-clause BSD license is universally considered a free software license and is certainly acceptable for checking into our repository. Moreover, it's GPL-compatible. The license permits you to take any BSD-licensed software that you possess and relicense it as GPL (or under any other compatible license, such as "totally proprietary (plus liability/attribution requirements for redistributors)"). You certainly wouldn't need to rewrite anything.
However, it seems to include a number of trademarked, copyrighted logos. In other words, it's not really BSD-licensed. I don't know if the logos should be in the repo. Even if we're not going to worry about copyright on logos (à la Firefox), I'd think that the current extension might be a trademark violation, in that users might reasonably think your site is part of or endorsed by Google/AOL/etc. IANAL, of course.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Sergey Chernyshev http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/ _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I sent an email to OpenID general and legal lists CC-ing this list - not sure how we should go about it, but I'll definitely delay UI release until I get some initial understanding of potential solution (it's sort-of weird to have good UI without images).
Sergey
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, Be glad that the original developer chose the BSD license. From a perspective of being able to cooperate widely, the BSD license is vastly superior to the GPL. It is for this reason that I urge you to develop first the BSD software and back-port to a GPL'd version. Then again as long as you solely work on the code, you as the copyright holder are entitled to do this anyway. When a second person shares code it starts to become problematic.
The notion that trade marked logos are problematic is true for a specific strict understanding of the GPL license as is prevalent under people who adhere to the Debian way of thinking. It is definetly not universally shared and it is a travesty that brought us Iceweasel. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/24 Sergey Chernyshev sergey.chernyshev@gmail.com
Great - thanks for the license clarification, I don't think I was too excited to re-implement selector.
Good point about logos - so what do we do with this? How do we make sure all those logos (including OpenID, BTW) are properly licensed? I don't think original developer thought about that either when he licensed it under
BSD
license.
Sergey
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com Simetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com <
Simetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com Simetrical%252Bwikilist@gmail.com><
Simetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com Simetrical%252Bwikilist@gmail.com <
Simetrical%252Bwikilist@gmail.com Simetrical%25252Bwikilist@gmail.com>>
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Sergey Chernyshev sergey.chernyshev@gmail.com wrote:
I've made some customizations to OpenID selector code ( http://code.google.com/p/openid-selector/) and combined it with
MediaWiki
OpenID extension, you can see the result here: http://www.sharingbuttons.org/Special:OpenIDLogin
Iwant to check it in back into the repository, but it uses "New BSD
License"
and I wonder if it's OK to do so.
Otherwise I'll write one from scratch and GPL it.
The three-clause BSD license is universally considered a free software license and is certainly acceptable for checking into our repository. Moreover, it's GPL-compatible. The license permits you to take any BSD-licensed software that you possess and relicense it as GPL (or under any other compatible license, such as "totally proprietary (plus liability/attribution requirements for redistributors)"). You certainly wouldn't need to rewrite anything.
However, it seems to include a number of trademarked, copyrighted logos. In other words, it's not really BSD-licensed. I don't know if the logos should be in the repo. Even if we're not going to worry about copyright on logos (à la Firefox), I'd think that the current extension might be a trademark violation, in that users might reasonably think your site is part of or endorsed by Google/AOL/etc. IANAL, of course.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Sergey Chernyshev http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/ _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Sergey Chernyshev sergey.chernyshev@gmail.com wrote:
I sent an email to OpenID general and legal lists CC-ing this list - not sure how we should go about it, but I'll definitely delay UI release until I get some initial understanding of potential solution (it's sort-of weird to have good UI without images).
You might want to ask Brion, and/or Mike Godwin (the Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel).
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The notion that trade marked logos are problematic is true for a specific strict understanding of the GPL license as is prevalent under people who adhere to the Debian way of thinking. It is definetly not universally shared and it is a travesty that brought us Iceweasel.
The Iceweasel question is "Does it violate the definition of free software to permit logos released under licenses permitting only restricted distribution?" Most people other than Debian would say no, because 1) they're a tiny part of the software and easily removed, and 2) they're trademarked, so you couldn't use them for much even if they weren't copyrighted. Wikimedia's logos (well, except the MediaWiki one) are copyrighted with all rights reserved, so probably Wikimedia disagrees with Debian on this.
The question that I asked, though, was "Do we want to use or distributed copyrighted/trademarked logos *without* *any* *permission* from the rights-holder?" We are *not* talking about a case where the logo is licensed for people to use only restrictively. We're talking about a case where the logo is not licensed at *all*. You can't just go ahead and take a major corporation's logo and incorporate it into your software without permission. Whether you use the GPL, BSD, MIT, proprietary licenses, or whatever, that's just illegal, or at least possibly so.
On 2/24/09 4:06 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
The Iceweasel question is "Does it violate the definition of free software to permit logos released under licenses permitting only restricted distribution?" Most people other than Debian would say no, because 1) they're a tiny part of the software and easily removed, and 2) they're trademarked, so you couldn't use them for much even if they weren't copyrighted. Wikimedia's logos (well, except the MediaWiki one) are copyrighted with all rights reserved, so probably Wikimedia disagrees with Debian on this.
The question that I asked, though, was "Do we want to use or distributed copyrighted/trademarked logos *without* *any* *permission* from the rights-holder?" We are *not* talking about a case where the logo is licensed for people to use only restrictively. We're talking about a case where the logo is not licensed at *all*. You can't just go ahead and take a major corporation's logo and incorporate it into your software without permission. Whether you use the GPL, BSD, MIT, proprietary licenses, or whatever, that's just illegal, or at least possibly so.
<IANAL> My impression is that this is just as legal as referring to a company by name -- it's not an infringement to use someone's trademark to *refer to them*, whereas it is to *use the mark or something overly similar to creation confusion and imply you are associated with the mark holder*.
However, I don't know just how true this is going to be of logos. :) </IANAL>
-- brion
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
<IANAL> My impression is that this is just as legal as referring to a company by name -- it's not an infringement to use someone's trademark to *refer to them*, whereas it is to *use the mark or something overly similar to creation confusion and imply you are associated with the mark holder*.
However, I don't know just how true this is going to be of logos. :)
</IANAL>
Yeah, I guess that any trademark issues with the logo would apply to just using the names, as well . . . I dunno, I'm just raising the issue. Don't ask me for the answer. :)
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
[skip-skip]
<IANAL>
My impression is that this is just as legal as referring to a company by name -- it's not an infringement to use someone's trademark to *refer to them*, whereas it is to *use the mark or something overly similar to creation confusion and imply you are associated with the mark holder*.
However, I don't know just how true this is going to be of logos. :)
</IANAL>
-- brion
Brion,
I spoke to David Recordon and at OpenID foundation and he's saying that at this point they don't have a legal basis for licensing these images and that he's working on license for OpenID logo itself. David also promised to connect me with people at Google who might help with licensing their logo.
<IANAL> Looking at current trend of many companies using such images, I would say that it can be considered safe to use it in MediaWiki until such licensing gets into better shape. </IANAL>
I think, I'll create a switch that will control display of images vs. just text lables so extension users can decide for themselves if they want to use icons until there is better licensing implemented.
Let me know if you feel this is a reasonable solution for the time being.
Thank you,
Sergey
-- Sergey Chernyshev http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The notion that trade marked logos are problematic is true for a specific strict understanding of the GPL license as is prevalent under people who adhere to the Debian way of thinking. It is definetly not universally shared and it is a travesty that brought us Iceweasel.
The Iceweasel question is "Does it violate the definition of free software to permit logos released under licenses permitting only restricted distribution?" Most people other than Debian would say no, because 1) they're a tiny part of the software and easily removed, and 2) they're trademarked, so you couldn't use them for much even if they weren't copyrighted.
This is getting a bit off-topic, but the fundamental stumbling block with Firefox wasn't the logos; rather it was Mozilla's trademark-licensing policy. Nobody may distribute a browser named "Firefox" unless it's either the unmodified official release, or first clears any modifications with Mozilla. Debian considered that non-free, because the right to distribute your own patched version is sort of the whole point of free software. More practically, their security team objected to having legal hurdles between writing a patch and being permitted to ship it. So, they use a different name that doesn't come with that "must get approval for all modifications" restriction.
(The logo issue is tangled in because the first modification Debian tried to do that triggered a Mozilla objection was removing the Firefox logo. But in the ensuing discussion, Mozilla made clear that they would object to *any* modifications that weren't first cleared with them, which is what made it impossible for Debian to continue using the Firefox name, even for Debian developers who were on the other side of the logo issue.)
-Mark
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 03:01:03PM -0500, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
The three-clause BSD license is universally considered a free software license and is certainly acceptable for checking into our repository. Moreover, it's GPL-compatible. The license permits you to take any BSD-licensed software that you possess and relicense it as GPL (or under any other compatible license, such as "totally proprietary (plus liability/attribution requirements for redistributors)"). You certainly wouldn't need to rewrite anything.
That's not exactly accurate. You can't just "relicense" BSD-licensed code with the GPL, or make it proprietary. What you *can* do is include it in something that sorta "wraps" or incorporates the BSD-licensed code, and license the *whole* using a different license, as long as the original BSD-licensed code still gets distributed with its BSD license too.
That doesn't change the fact that you don't need to relicense or rewrite anything to use BSD-licensed code in this case.
However, it seems to include a number of trademarked, copyrighted logos. In other words, it's not really BSD-licensed. I don't know if the logos should be in the repo. Even if we're not going to worry about copyright on logos (à la Firefox), I'd think that the current extension might be a trademark violation, in that users might reasonably think your site is part of or endorsed by Google/AOL/etc. IANAL, of course.
This may be a very real concern and, as you point out, should be considered and/or changed.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org