debian packages for 0.8.2 + CC licensing

Hi Martin,

--- Martin Kauss <bishophopen-xchange.org> wrote:

> On May 03, 2006 12:00 PM, Erwin Rol
<mailinglistserwinrol.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 10:31 +0200, Martin Kauss
wrote:
> > > On May 03, 2006 10:00 AM, Erwin Rol
<mailinglistserwinrol.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > My guess is that we are thinking, but we
should know. Is anybody
> > > willing to get a proofed answer on this
topic? This is something
> > > i would like to know and of course it could
be interesting for
> > > our future decisions.
> > 
> > Well the only way to get a "proofed"
answer is by a judge. The
> better
> > way is probably ask the Debian people and have
their answer checked
> by
> > your lawyer. Of course the simplest way is just to
pick a license
> the
> > Debian people, and with that about every other
distribution, allow
> for
> > sure (like the GPL).
> > 
> > - Erwin
> > 
> 
> 
> Well, i digged a bit deeper into this very interesting
license
> issue and into the Debian world. My opinion is that an
Open-Xchange
> Debian package is possible, right now:
> 
> In the current state, the Open-Xchange project could be
splitted
> into two packages, the engine and the web frontend
(Balint stated
> out that a "pure GPL" package makes no
sense for him, so i am
Yes, if "pure GPL" package means the currently
GPL-ed part without the
CC licensed web interface. 

> thinking
> about a new possibility). The engine would go to
"contrib" (or maybe
> any later to "main" if the Java topic is
clear) repository and the
> web
> interface would simple be stored in non-free. There are
other
> examples
> on the "debian-legal" list where such a
proceeding is mentioned.
> 
> My incentive is to show that different ways lead to
Rom, JFYI.

It could work, but first, it is not clear for me if CC
licensed work
could be included in non-free section:
http://www.debi
an.org/legal/licenses/

If the CC part will be able to go to non-free I'll need
help, at least
a text file, that describe all file's license in a machine
readable
form, like:

CC /html/calendar/one.html
GPL /sbin/adduser_ox

with that, i can build the separate packages for contrib and
non-free.

I'll continue releasing open-xchange packages after it will
be clear if
it is able to get in Debian.

Cheers,
Balint

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yah
oo.com 

_______________________________________________
General mailing list
Generalopen-xchange.org
http://www.open-xchange.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
/general

On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 12:26 +0200, Martin Kauss wrote:

> 
> Well, i digged a bit deeper into this very interesting
license
> issue and into the Debian world. My opinion is that an
Open-Xchange
> Debian package is possible, right now:
> 
> In the current state, the Open-Xchange project could be
splitted
> into two packages, the engine and the web frontend
(Balint stated
> out that a "pure GPL" package makes no
sense for him, so i am thinking
> about a new possibility). The engine would go to
"contrib" (or maybe
> any later to "main" if the Java topic is
clear) repository and the web
> interface would simple be stored in non-free. There are
other examples
> on the "debian-legal" list where such a
proceeding is mentioned.

Before we get into an endless license debate, I would like
to ask why
the GPL can't be used for the frontend? It would really
make things easy
if the frontend is GPL or something like BSD/MIT. To be
honest i don't
see what the problem is, the frontend is useless without the
backend,
and that is GPL, so nobody will beable to
"steal" the frontend anyway. 

- Erwin




_______________________________________________
General mailing list
Generalopen-xchange.org
http://www.open-xchange.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
/general

On May 03, 2006 07:58 PM, Erwin Rol <mailinglistserwinrol.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 12:26 +0200, Martin Kauss wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Well, i digged a bit deeper into this very
interesting license
> > issue and into the Debian world. My opinion is
that an Open-Xchange
> > Debian package is possible, right now:
> > 
> > In the current state, the Open-Xchange project
could be splitted
> > into two packages, the engine and the web frontend
(Balint stated
> > out that a "pure GPL" package makes no
sense for him, so i am thinking
> > about a new possibility). The engine would go to
"contrib" (or maybe
> > any later to "main" if the Java topic
is clear) repository and the web
> > interface would simple be stored in non-free.
There are other examples
> > on the "debian-legal" list where such
a proceeding is mentioned.
> 
> Before we get into an endless license debate, I would
like to ask why
> the GPL can't be used for the frontend? It would
really make things easy
> if the frontend is GPL or something like BSD/MIT. To be
honest i don't
> see what the problem is, the frontend is useless
without the backend,
> and that is GPL, so nobody will beable to
"steal" the frontend anyway. 
> 
> - Erwin
> 



Good morning,

the answers why we have chosen the Creative Common license
are:


 - Open-Xchange includes images, html files, stylesheets and
   other content
 
 - Open-Xchange is using this license because we will face a
   huge change and it could be that the frontend can be used
   without the backend

 - The community ask for this (i do not mean the community
you
   see here on the list - but you maybe can imagine that
there
   are other communities behind Open-Xchange - not visible
on the
   very first view)


Just for your information, there were some other motivations
i
will not list today.


Saludos,

Martin Kauss





_______________________________________________
General mailing list
Generalopen-xchange.org
http://www.open-xchange.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
/general

On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 09:34 +0200, Martin Kauss wrote:

> the answers why we have chosen the Creative Common
license are:

>  - Open-Xchange includes images, html files,
stylesheets and
>    other content

That is a "fact" not a "reason". I
assume you want to say that your
lawyer thinks the GPL is not suitable for non-program-code ?
But what
about something like the BSD license ? 

>  - Open-Xchange is using this license because we will
face a
>    huge change and it could be that the frontend can be
used
>    without the backend

That doesn't mean the current state can't but put under
the GPL (or
another for non-program-code suitable Free license). And
after the
current release just before the "big change",
change the license to
something else. Of course an AJAX (which i assume you will
use, cause
everybody "needs" AJAX these days) frontend does
not have to be put
under a non-Free license. 

Actually a the start of a different frontend is a perfect
situation to
put the old one under a Free license, since Netline will
have a more
modern and up to date frontend compared to the Free version.


>  - The community ask for this (i do not mean the
community you
>    see here on the list - but you maybe can imagine
that there
>    are other communities behind Open-Xchange - not
visible on the
>    very first view)

Wat was that community's reason to ask for this exact CC
license and not
for a Free license like the GPL/BSD or for a closed
commercial license?

> Just for your information, there were some other
motivations i
> will not list today.

I am sure you have a reason, but that still is a shame. 

- Erwin



_______________________________________________
General mailing list
Generalopen-xchange.org
http://www.open-xchange.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
/general

On May 05, 2006 10:39 AM, Erwin Rol <mailinglistserwinrol.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 09:34 +0200, Martin Kauss wrote:
> 
> > the answers why we have chosen the Creative Common
license are:
> 
> >  - Open-Xchange includes images, html files,
stylesheets and
> >    other content
> 
> That is a "fact" not a
"reason". I assume you want to say that your
> lawyer thinks the GPL is not suitable for
non-program-code ? But what
> about something like the BSD license ? 
> 


Yes, more or less. Please do not ask me why Open-Xchange has
chosen the 
Creative Common and not the BSD/MIT/XYZ license ... there
are hundreds
of licenses available. Some people do not like the GPL
because this license
is to "viral", they asked us to use the LGPL.
Others do not like the BSD
because then you lose control and everybody can take it and
include it
in other projects. I am not talking about discussions
Open-Xchange had,
i am talking about discussions from and in "the
community". You do not like
the CC, million others do not have a problem with this
(there are special
searches available for this license: http://search.yahoo.com/cc
 ).

I can definitely guarantee that i will bring the whole
discussion we had
on the Open-Xchange discussion table ASAP.



> >  - Open-Xchange is using this license because we
will face a
> >    huge change and it could be that the frontend
can be used
> >    without the backend
> 
> That doesn't mean the current state can't but put
under the GPL (or
> another for non-program-code suitable Free license).
And after the
> current release just before the "big
change", change the license to
> something else. Of course an AJAX (which i assume you
will use, cause
> everybody "needs" AJAX these days) frontend
does not have to be put
> under a non-Free license. 
> 
> Actually a the start of a different frontend is a
perfect situation to
> put the old one under a Free license, since Netline
will have a more
> modern and up to date frontend compared to the Free
version. 
> 


I will explain the situationRegards, and we will have some
discussions about
this topic internally.



> >  - The community ask for this (i do not mean the
community you
> >    see here on the list - but you maybe can
imagine that there
> >    are other communities behind Open-Xchange - not
visible on the
> >    very first view)
> 
> Wat was that community's reason to ask for this exact
CC license and not
> for a Free license like the GPL/BSD or for a closed
commercial license?
> 


The Creative Common is not seen as a closed source
commercial license
at all, so why do you think it is? 


> > Just for your information, there were some other
motivations i
> > will not list today.
> 
> I am sure you have a reason, but that still is a shame.

> 
> - Erwin
> 


Ciao,

Martin Kauss





_______________________________________________
General mailing list
Generalopen-xchange.org
http://www.open-xchange.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
/general

On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 11:39 +0200, Martin Kauss wrote:

> Yes, more or less. Please do not ask me why
Open-Xchange has chosen the 
> Creative Common and not the BSD/MIT/XYZ license ...
there are hundreds
> of licenses available. Some people do not like the GPL
because this license
> is to "viral", they asked us to use the
LGPL. Others do not like the BSD
> because then you lose control and everybody can take it
and include it
> in other projects. I am not talking about discussions
Open-Xchange had,
> i am talking about discussions from and in "the
community". You do not like
> the CC, million others do not have a problem with this
(there are special
> searches available for this license: http://search.yahoo.com/cc
 ).

The whole thing is that the Debian legal people have some
problems with
the CC license. Saying that millions have no problem with it
might be
true, but millions also have no problem with Microsoft and
co's terrible
licenses.

> I can definitely guarantee that i will bring the whole
discussion we had
> on the Open-Xchange discussion table ASAP.

That would be nice, even though I seem to be the only one
being a PITA
at the moment, I think others are interested in the
reasoning behind it
also 

> > Wat was that community's reason to ask for this
exact CC license and not
> > for a Free license like the GPL/BSD or for a
closed commercial license?
> > 
> The Creative Common is not seen as a closed source
commercial license
> at all, so why do you think it is? 

That was not what i was trying to say, but i admit it
wasn't very clear
what i was trying to say  What i
wanted to say was; "Did that
community ask for exactly the CC license? And if so, why did
they ask
for that license and not for another kind of license."

- Erwin



_______________________________________________
General mailing list
Generalopen-xchange.org
http://www.open-xchange.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
/general

On May 05, 2006 12:32 PM, Erwin Rol <mailinglistserwinrol.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 11:39 +0200, Martin Kauss wrote:
> 
> > Yes, more or less. Please do not ask me why
Open-Xchange has chosen the 
> > Creative Common and not the BSD/MIT/XYZ license
... there are hundreds
> > of licenses available. Some people do not like the
GPL because this license
> > is to "viral", they asked us to use
the LGPL. Others do not like the BSD
> > because then you lose control and everybody can
take it and include it
> > in other projects. I am not talking about
discussions Open-Xchange had,
> > i am talking about discussions from and in
"the community". You do not like
> > the CC, million others do not have a problem with
this (there are special
> > searches available for this license: http://search.yahoo.com/cc
 ).
> 
> The whole thing is that the Debian legal people have
some problems with
> the CC license. Saying that millions have no problem
with it might be
> true, but millions also have no problem with Microsoft
and co's terrible
> licenses.
> 


I do not want to start from the beginning again, but Debian
do not
have any issue with the GPL and Open-Xchange's source code
is
obviously under the GPL. For other material - which does not
fit
into Debian's ideology - they have a special repository and
i explained
that, if you have really the interest to work with
Open-Xchange and
you want OX as a Debian package, there is a way for you
right now.

We did our moves already, now you can move or just
"grumble" around
and stop if you do not like what we have done or maybe it is
time
to *show* us that there is really a community which is
helpful for
Open-Xchange which is eventually more worth than talking
about how
good it *could* be, because we have to change more than just
one license 
to make everybody happy.

The question is: who is the "mountain" and who
is the "prophet" - 
if you know what i mean .


> > I can definitely guarantee that i will bring the
whole discussion we had
> > on the Open-Xchange discussion table ASAP.
> 
> That would be nice, even though I seem to be the only
one being a PITA
> at the moment, I think others are interested in the
reasoning behind it
> also 
> 


Yeah, but there is rarely a situation where everybody is
satisfied ...



> > > Wat was that community's reason to ask for
this exact CC license and not
> > > for a Free license like the GPL/BSD or for a
closed commercial license?
> > > 
> > The Creative Common is not seen as a closed source
commercial license
> > at all, so why do you think it is? 
> 
> That was not what i was trying to say, but i admit it
wasn't very clear
> what i was trying to say  What i
wanted to say was; "Did that
> community ask for exactly the CC license? And if so,
why did they ask
> for that license and not for another kind of
license."
> 



This is outside of my scope, sorry.



> - Erwin
> 
> 
> 


Hasta luego,

Martin Kauss






_______________________________________________
General mailing list
Generalopen-xchange.org
http://www.open-xchange.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
/general

Hey all,

I think we all reached the end of the licensing discussion.
Netline (and
as the copyright holder that is their right) insists on
using the CC
license which is not compatible with the goals of the Fedora
and Debian
distributions. 

This means Open-Xchange will never be part of the official
Fedora or
Debian distribution, just like the Sun Java VM's aren't
part of them.

My idea was to remove the dependency on the Sun Java
libraries, so
Open-Xchange could be included in Fedora and Debian. This is
now useless
because when Open-Xchange itself is already in non-free you
can just as
well also install the non-free Java stuff.

With other words getting Open-Xchange to run on GCJ is a
waste of time.
Everybody who would like to have the stuff I already did can
find the
SRPM's on my website http
://www.erwinrol.com/index.php?downloads.php.
The patch in those RPMS has some problems with the 0.8.2
release version
but it needs a lot more work anyway. 

If Netline decides to put the whole Open-Xchange suit under
a Free
license I will certainly pickup the effort again to make it
work with
GCJ.

- Erwin



_______________________________________________
General mailing list
Generalopen-xchange.org
http://www.open-xchange.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
/general

Hi Martin,

--- Martin Kauss <bishophopen-xchange.org> wrote:

> On May 05, 2006 12:32 PM, Erwin Rol
<mailinglistserwinrol.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 11:39 +0200, Martin Kauss
wrote:
> > 
> > > Yes, more or less. Please do not ask me why
Open-Xchange has
> chosen the 
> > > Creative Common and not the BSD/MIT/XYZ
license ... there are
> hundreds
> > > of licenses available. Some people do not
like the GPL because
> this license
> > > is to "viral", they asked us to
use the LGPL. Others do not like
> the BSD
> > > because then you lose control and everybody
can take it and
> include it
> > > in other projects. I am not talking about
discussions
> Open-Xchange had,
> > > i am talking about discussions from and in
"the community". You
> do not like
> > > the CC, million others do not have a problem
with this (there are
> special
> > > searches available for this license: http://search.yahoo.com/cc

> ).
> > 
> > The whole thing is that the Debian legal people
have some problems
> with
> > the CC license. Saying that millions have no
problem with it might
> be
> > true, but millions also have no problem with
Microsoft and co's
> terrible
> > licenses.
> > 
> 
> 
> I do not want to start from the beginning again, but
Debian do not
> have any issue with the GPL and Open-Xchange's source
code is
> obviously under the GPL. For other material - which
does not fit
> into Debian's ideology - they have a special
repository and i
> explained
> that, if you have really the interest to work with
Open-Xchange and
> you want OX as a Debian package, there is a way for you
right now.

I have the interest, but i don't know if the CC
"Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5" part
of Open-Xchange could
enter even the non-free section. I stopped working on OX
until it
becomes clear, without grumbling. 


> We did our moves already, now you can move or just
"grumble" around
> and stop if you do not like what we have done or maybe
it is time
> to *show* us that there is really a community which is
helpful for
> Open-Xchange which is eventually more worth than
talking about how
> good it *could* be, because we have to change more than
just one
> license 
> to make everybody happy.
> 
> The question is: who is the "mountain" and
who is the "prophet" - 
> if you know what i mean .
> 
Or the question is: who can move? 


Cheers,
Balint


		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service
from just 7p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com


_______________________________________________
General mailing list
Generalopen-xchange.org
http://www.open-xchange.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
/general

On May 05, 2006 05:10 PM, Balint Reczey
<balint_reczeyyahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
> 
> --- Martin Kauss <bishophopen-xchange.org> wrote:
> 
> > On May 05, 2006 12:32 PM, Erwin Rol
<mailinglistserwinrol.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 11:39 +0200, Martin
Kauss wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Yes, more or less. Please do not ask me
why Open-Xchange has
> > chosen the 
> > > > Creative Common and not the BSD/MIT/XYZ
license ... there are
> > hundreds
> > > > of licenses available. Some people do
not like the GPL because
> > this license
> > > > is to "viral", they asked us
to use the LGPL. Others do not like
> > the BSD
> > > > because then you lose control and
everybody can take it and
> > include it
> > > > in other projects. I am not talking
about discussions
> > Open-Xchange had,
> > > > i am talking about discussions from and
in "the community". You
> > do not like
> > > > the CC, million others do not have a
problem with this (there are
> > special
> > > > searches available for this license: http://search.yahoo.com/cc

> > ).
> > > 
> > > The whole thing is that the Debian legal
people have some problems
> > with
> > > the CC license. Saying that millions have no
problem with it might
> > be
> > > true, but millions also have no problem with
Microsoft and co's
> > terrible
> > > licenses.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > I do not want to start from the beginning again,
but Debian do not
> > have any issue with the GPL and Open-Xchange's
source code is
> > obviously under the GPL. For other material -
which does not fit
> > into Debian's ideology - they have a special
repository and i
> > explained
> > that, if you have really the interest to work with
Open-Xchange and
> > you want OX as a Debian package, there is a way
for you right now.
> 
> I have the interest, but i don't know if the CC
> "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5"
part of Open-Xchange could
> enter even the non-free section. I stopped working on
OX until it
> becomes clear, without grumbling. 
> 
> 
> > We did our moves already, now you can move or just
"grumble" around
> > and stop if you do not like what we have done or
maybe it is time
> > to *show* us that there is really a community
which is helpful for
> > Open-Xchange which is eventually more worth than
talking about how
> > good it *could* be, because we have to change more
than just one
> > license 
> > to make everybody happy.
> > 
> > The question is: who is the "mountain"
and who is the "prophet" - 
> > if you know what i mean .
> > 
> Or the question is: who can move? 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Balint
> 
> 


Hi Balint,

i have talked to the Open-Xchange legal manager and i will
give him
the mail address of the debian-legal mailinglist so that he
can
discuss this directly.

I would personally like it very much if you could continue
with Open-Xchange.


With kind regards and a nice weekend,

Martin Kauss







_______________________________________________
General mailing list
Generalopen-xchange.org
http://www.open-xchange.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
/general