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> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Sergey Chernyshev > &lt;sergey.chernyshev(a)gmail.com> > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l -- Sergey Chernyshev http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/

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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: -- Sergey Chernyshev http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; 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.

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Brion Vibber &lt;brion(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: 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. :)

Aryeh Gregor wrote: 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