Description of problem: According to the members of the French Mageia community, there's a lot of mistakes in the Mageia license : the part "Intellectual Property Rights" and other parts do not represent the philosophy of the Mageia project (free software, GNU/Linux philosophy), I think it's the original Mandriva license and only the words "Mandriva" have been replaced by "Mageia"... (Sorry, my english is poor, I'm French). Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Reproducible: Steps to Reproduce:
It's the first time that I report a bug, so there's a lot of parts that I unable to write/select. I hope you'll understand.
To be clearer, there is nothing wrong as far as I know with regard to the free software philosophy, but our current licence does refer to commercial products and intellectual property; this is not wrong for a free software (free software can be "free" and commercial, like Mandrake/Mandriva were), but it does not correspond to the Mageia project. We might want to drop parts of the custom license and stick more to the plain GPL.
CC: (none) => remi
The "Intellectual Property Rights" must stay. for example this: "All rights to the components of the Software Products belong to their respective authors and are protected by intellectual property and copyright laws applicable to software programs." also covers nVidia / AMD / Broadcom rights about their drivers and a lot of nonfree firwares we ship. And this one should really be self-explanatory: ""Mageia" and associated logos are trademarks of Mageia.Org"
CC: (none) => tmb
I just read the licence again, and actually it fits our project relatively well, so we probably don't need to change it much. The only part that bugs me is: "Mageia" and associated logos are trademarks of Mageia.Org Did we ever register such trademarks? I'm pretty sure we did not, so this should be removed from our license. Another point that would be nice to clarify is the version of the GPL license under which Mageia software are licensed. Is it GPL version 1?
Hm, I think the name got registered in France, but I cant say about the logo for now
(In reply to Thomas Backlund from comment #5) >(In reply to Rémi Verschelde from comment #4) >> I just read the licence again, and actually it fits our project relatively >> well, so we probably don't need to change it much. >> >> The only part that bugs me is: >> "Mageia" and associated logos are trademarks of Mageia.Org >> >> Did we ever register such trademarks? I'm pretty sure we did not, so this >> should be removed from our license. > > Hm, I think the name got registered in France, but I cant say about the logo > for now Anne, could you comment on this part? Did we register the Mageia name as a trademark in France, and what about the logo? If the trademark is registered in France, I guess it's not enforceable in the rest of the world, but at least we can safely say that it's a "registered trademark" I suppose :-) (the Groupon vs. GNOME stuff showed that trademark does not mean much anyway...)
CC: (none) => ennael1
Mageia name has been registered in the very first days of Mageia, in 2010. See following URL: http://bases-marques.inpi.fr/Typo3_INPI_Marques/marques_resultats_liste.html We are transfering it to Mageia.Org association as when it was registered the association was not stil created.
OK thanks for the clarification :-) So I guess the logo is not particularly registered, and that's about the only thing that we'd have to change in the licence?
Well, I guess we should trademark that one too
Thank you for your answers. I'm a beginner in the world of GNU/Linux and Mageia, so I was a little bit lost :)
(In reply to Thomas Backlund from comment #9) > Well, I guess we should trademark that one too Pb is we have to trademark all new version which is quite expensive.
I guess thats just another reason to not change the logo
CC: (none) => watersnowrock
As license on web page is actually from drakx (see bellow) there is nothing the atelier team can do. I guess council is the best team do assign this bug. http://gitweb.mageia.org/software/drakx/tree/perl-install/share/po/libDrakX.pot
CC: (none) => filip.komar
(In reply to Filip Komar from comment #13) > As license on web page is actually from drakx (see bellow) there is nothing > the atelier team can do. I guess council is the best team do assign this bug. > > http://gitweb.mageia.org/software/drakx/tree/perl-install/share/po/libDrakX. > pot IINM, currently this line and below https://gitweb.mageia.org/software/drakx/tree/perl-install/share/po/libDrakX.pot#n4532 It is impossible to assign a bug to council, but I'll assign to the Mageia Tools maintainers and CC all council members I can think of.
Assignee: atelier-bugs => mageiatoolsSource RPM: (none) => drakx-installer-stage2-18.66-2.mga9Summary: Mistakes in the Mageia license => Mistakes in the Mageia license, council decision neededCC: ennael1, tmb => andrewsfarm, davidwhodgins, doktor5000, joselp, luigiwalser, maat-ml, mageia, magicandsave, marja11, nicolas.salguero, yurchorTarget Milestone: --- => Mageia 10Product: Websites => MageiaComponent: www.mageia.org => RPM PackagesVersion: trunk => Cauldron
I'm not a lawyer but I can help with translations provided we have a legally correct version of this statement.
What language in the license is in question? Is the English version in question, or just the translation?
(In reply to Dave Hodgins from comment #16) > What language in the license is in question? > > Is the English version in question, or just the translation? I believe it's an English version. And it looks like the whole text is too complex for an unprepared editor.
Reading the messages you refer to Marja, I don't think there is anything worng with our wordings. (IANAL) However, we may want to precise which version of the GPL we apply to our programs (looking at how old the code is, I think the only possibility is GPLv2). And we could want to trademark the Mageia logo. That was what was mentioned in this BR in 2015. So, I dont' think that council has much to say, maybe more to act on that.
CC: (none) => bruno
I agree with Bruno's interpretation, based on what I read in this bug.
(In reply to Bruno Cornec from comment #18) > Reading the messages you refer to Marja, I don't think there is anything > worng with our wordings. (IANAL) > > However, we may want to precise which version of the GPL we apply to our > programs (looking at how old the code is, I think the only possibility is > GPLv2). > > And we could want to trademark the Mageia logo. > > That was what was mentioned in this BR in 2015. > > So, I dont' think that council has much to say, maybe more to act on that. (In reply to David Walser from comment #19) > I agree with Bruno's interpretation, based on what I read in this bug. Thanks for your replies. So all that needs to be done is change GPL to GPLv2 in the "N("3. The GPL License and Related Licenses")," section, currently here: https://gitweb.mageia.org/software/drakx/tree/perl-install/messages.pm#n68 which will propagate to https://www.mageia.org/en/about/license/ And when the board gets bored, which won't happen any time soon, they could trademark the Mageia logo :-)
Summary: Mistakes in the Mageia license, council decision needed => Improve the Mageia license, change GPL into GPLv2 in /drakx/tree/perl-install/messages.pm#n68-76Severity: normal => enhancement
See Also: (none) => https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31441