[arch-dev-public] fmodex
I just noticed that we have fmodex (a proprietary audio library) in [community]. Considering the discussion we had recently about steam, I think that the situation is similar here. The "FMOD Non-Commercial License" does not explicitely allow redistribution and allow only non-commercial use [1]. In the svn repository, there is a PERMISSION file [2], but it looks quite imprecise to me. I am not very good in legal stuff, but I think that we need a more formal permission to redistribute a possibly modified version of this package and to make sure they won't sue us because of the "non-commercial" specification. Stéphane [1] http://www.fmod.org/fmod-sales.html [2] https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PERMISSION?...
On 20.11.2012 15:12, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote:
I just noticed that we have fmodex (a proprietary audio library) in [community]. Considering the discussion we had recently about steam, I think that the situation is similar here. The "FMOD Non-Commercial License" does not explicitely allow redistribution and allow only non-commercial use [1]. In the svn repository, there is a PERMISSION file [2], but it looks quite imprecise to me.
I am not very good in legal stuff, but I think that we need a more formal permission to redistribute a possibly modified version of this package and to make sure they won't sue us because of the "non-commercial" specification.
Stéphane
[1] http://www.fmod.org/fmod-sales.html [2] https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PERMISSION?...
The CEO himself answered me there. Isn't that official enough?
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@lutzhaase.com>wrote:
The CEO himself answered me there. Isn't that official enough?
Could you forward me the original mail so we keep a copy in arch-dev? -- Andrea
Le 2012-11-20 09:14, Sven-Hendrik Haase a écrit :
On 20.11.2012 15:12, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote:
I just noticed that we have fmodex (a proprietary audio library) in [community]. Considering the discussion we had recently about steam, I think that the situation is similar here. The "FMOD Non-Commercial License" does not explicitely allow redistribution and allow only non-commercial use [1]. In the svn repository, there is a PERMISSION file [2], but it looks quite imprecise to me.
I am not very good in legal stuff, but I think that we need a more formal permission to redistribute a possibly modified version of this package and to make sure they won't sue us because of the "non-commercial" specification.
Stéphane
[1] http://www.fmod.org/fmod-sales.html [2] https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PERMISSION?...
The CEO himself answered me there. Isn't that official enough?
The answer is just ---- Hi Sven, sounds ok to me. regards, ---- The sentence "sound ok to me" is vague. What about patching the header filesfor example ? For the moment, fmod does not seems to be used by another package, but what can be linked (or not) with it in our repository ? "This license cannot be used for titles which do not make profit but are still commercially released" My understanding is that we need to be careful of not linking it with something that is commercialy released, even if it is GPL. Stéphane
On 20 November 2012 22:12, Stéphane Gaudreault <stephane@archlinux.org> wrote:
I just noticed that we have fmodex (a proprietary audio library) in [community]. Considering the discussion we had recently about steam, I think that the situation is similar here. The "FMOD Non-Commercial License" does not explicitely allow redistribution and allow only non-commercial use [1]. In the svn repository, there is a PERMISSION file [2], but it looks quite imprecise to me.
We have this problem because nowhere do we make this clear. People shove things into AUR (and from there, community) as long as the stuff is "redistributable", either obviously, or by consent via e-mail. We first have to have a page somewhere (e.g. wiki) documenting the process of verifying redistributable software as well as asking for permission to redistribute, along with an example (Flash?). Then, the AUR frontpage needs a line linking to that page. Something like: Remember to vote for your favourite packages! Some packages may be provided as binaries in [community]. Note that to be eligible for inclusion in [community], the software being packaged must be <href="$thepage">legally redistributable</href>.
I am not very good in legal stuff, but I think that we need a more formal permission to redistribute a possibly modified version of this package and to make sure they won't sue us because of the "non-commercial" specification.
Stéphane
[1] http://www.fmod.org/fmod-sales.html [2] https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PERMISSION?...
-- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
On 20 November 2012 22:32, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
<href="$thepage">legally redistributable</href>.
Oops. That was supposed to be <a href="$thepage">legally redistributable</a> or whatever the archweb markup is. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
participants (4)
-
Andrea Scarpino
-
Rashif Ray Rahman
-
Stéphane Gaudreault
-
Sven-Hendrik Haase