mentors.ln

mentors.ln@lists.fsfe.org

5 discussions

[Mentors of the Legal Network] Future of this list?
by Matija Šuklje 11 Aug '20

11 Aug '20

Hi, I’m wondering what’s the plan for this list and the LN Mentorship programme in general. cheers, Matija -- gsm: tel:+386.41.849.552 www: https://matija.suklje.name xmpp: matija.suklje(a)gabbler.org sip: matija_suklje(a)ippi.fr

2 1

[Mentors of the Legal Network] Inquiries
by Juan Pablo Gonzalez Gutierrez 25 May '18

25 May '18

Dear, I would like to ask you about the dynamic into the FSFE mail list. I’m a new member and I have a lot question but at the same time, I would like to know: “what to ask and when to answer a subject on a mail list”. I’m grateful for your piece of advice. Best regards, -- Juan Pablo González Gutiérrez.

2 1

Re: [Mentors of the Legal Network] [LN] Introducing: the Mentors of the Legal Network
by Haksung Jang (장학성) 02 Jun '16

02 Jun '16

Dear Nicola, and Mentors. I'm Haksung in LG Electronics. When I was in Barcelona last year and felt difficulty to understand discussion topics in the LLW 2015, Karen Copenhaver said she could be my mentor and suggested the mentor system to Matija. Very thanks to Karen, I could follow sessions and got lots of valuable information from the workshop. I'm very happy to hear the new mailing list, <mentors.ln(a)list.fsfe.org>. Honestly, I've been hesitating to ask questions using the LN mailing list because I'm not sure whether they might have been asked before. Thank you for providing the useful method for new comers. Now, I'd like to ask one thing to mentors. The GENIVI Alliance[1 <http://www.genivi.org/>] has a public policy for licensing and copyright[2 <http://docs.projects.genivi.org/License/Public_Policy_for_GENIVI_Licensing_…>]. They divided open source licenses into three categories, - Green-light: These licenses have been reviewed by GENIVI and accepted as suitable licenses without restrictions. - Red-light: These licenses have been reviewed by GENIVI and rejected. - Orange-light: These licenses have been reviewed by GENIVI and accepted as suitable licenses in certain cases. One of the interesting things is they put the LGPL 2.1[3 <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html>] into Orange-light licenses, but put the LGPL 2.0[4 <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.0.html>] into Red-light licenses. They say the reason why they reject the LGPLv2.0 in the document[2 <http://docs.projects.genivi.org/License/Public_Policy_for_GENIVI_Licensing_…>] is that the LGPLv2.0 requires distribution of the object code of the whole work that uses the library, to enable the recipient to link his/her modified version of the library to the resulting work. # Do you think that their classification for LGPL v2.0 is reasonable? The requirements, distribution of the object code of the whole work that uses the library, is also applicable to LGPLv2.1 as I know. * GNU FAQ [5 <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic>] Q) Does the LGPL have different requirements for statically vs dynamically linked modules with a covered work? (#LGPLStaticVsDynamic <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic>) A) For the purpose of complying with the LGPL (any extant version: v2, v2.1 or v3): (1) If you statically link against an LGPL'd library, you must also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application. (2) If you dynamically link against an LGPL'd library already present on the user's computer, you need not convey the library's source. On the other hand, if you yourself convey the executable LGPL'd library along with your application, whether linked with statically or dynamically, you must also convey the library's sources, in one of the ways for which the LGPL provides. Thank you for your answer in advance. Best Regards, Haksung [1] http://www.genivi.org/ [2] http://docs.projects.genivi.org/License/Public_Policy_for_GENIVI_Licensing_… [3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html [4] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.0.html [5] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic Haksung Jang / 장학성 Senior Research Engineer Open Source Compliance Project, Software Center, CTO, LG Electronics. p: +82 10 3630 5799 e: haksung.jang(a)lge.com l:https://www.linkedin.com/in/haksung-jang-5b90b3b1 On 2016-05-24 오후 7:09, Nicola Feltrin wrote: > Dear Members of the Legal Network, > > As many of you surely know, at the last two LLWs we set up a mentor system > that paired more experienced members with eager-to-learn necomers. Given the > huge success of the initiative and the fact that a big fraction of this list > rarely participates directly in the discussions, we have been considering > whether it is possible to expand it to the Legal Network and how. > > After some brainstorming we decided to try and set up an experimental mailing > list, populated by expert Legal Network members willing to contribute their > time to answering simple or already discussed issues. Around the end of this > year we will evaluate the success of this initiative and decide where to go > from there. > > In practice, it works as follows. If you would like to ask a question but are > not sure if it's relevant, interesting or has been asked before, you can > submit it to <mentors.ln(a)lists.fsfe.org>. A mentor from that list will give > you a reply in private that will either: > > a) contain the answer you were looking for; or > b) (if the the issue is new and interesting for the whole Network) encourage > you to post it directly to the main list. In case you still feel shy about it, > the mentor will also be able to ask your question to the list without > mentioning who was the original poster. > > The Mentors mailing list is already active and includes a good number of > mentors. If you would like to become a mentor yourself, feel free to write me > or to FSFE's Legal Team <legal(a)lists.fsfe.org>. > > With my best regards, > > > _______________________________________________ > LN mailing list > LN(a)lists.fsfe.org > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/ln

5 8

[Mentors of the Legal Network] RV: [LN] Introducing: the Mentors of the Legal Network
by Malcolm Bain 25 May '16

25 May '16

Nicola dixit: > In practice, it works as follows. If you would like to ask a question but > are > not sure if it's relevant, interesting or has been asked before, you can > submit it to <mentors.ln(a)lists.fsfe.org>. A mentor from that list will > give > you a reply in private that will either: Aha - I see where this comes from. No probs, but I don't think the suggestion that anyone may send any question is quite right... the idea is that: "If a newcomer to FOSS legal issues would like to ask a question regarding FOSS licensing / legal issues but is not sure if it's relevant, interesting or has been asked before... (e.g. where can a document be found, if anything has been written on X before, has Y been discussed before, is the BSD a copyleft license, who is "RMS", what does DRMS mean and is the same as RMS, what is a derivative work under GPLv2, whether GPLv3 is really a free software license, is VMware going to win the court case in Germany, etc.), you can submit it to <mentors.ln(a)lists.fsfe.org>. [Hopefully] A mentor from that list will give you a reply [that you may understand]" :-) Malcolm

2 1

[Mentors of the Legal Network] What is a code "snippet" and how is it licensed?
by Jeremiah Foster 24 May '16

24 May '16

Hi, Does a code snippet have any legal definition or meaning? I ask because when working on compliance with a company they're told that code snippets implicitly contain the license they were under originally. This makes sense of course, you cannot copy something from a GPL'd file and then claim it is your copyright, that seems unfair. But what if separately one has written the exact same function. Given that in many cases there are only a few specific ways to do things, this might not be that far-fetched. Here's my strawman: In this GNU file http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/hurd/glibc.git/tree/io/access.c there is code that tests the properties of a given file for access. This is a small C source code file of about 40 lines, nearly half of which is a license header. What if one saw these lines; { if (file == NULL || (type & ~(R_OK|W_OK|X_OK|F_OK)) != 0) { __set_errno (EINVAL); return -1; } __set_errno (ENOSYS); return -1; } in a proprietary file somewhere. It is half of the code from the access.c file, but arguably likely the only way to do this particular task. Yes, you can rearrange the the R_OK (read okay) and W_OK (write okay) etc, but this is merely cosmetic, the functionality remains the same. To me, this mere snippet lacks the originality test of copyright, but cutting and pasting it is considered presumably to be a copyright violation and requires use under the GPL since the original code is under the GPL. Is this how one treats "snippets"? Are they recognized as a type of enforceable copyrighted unit? Many thanks, Jeremiah -- Jeremiah C. Foster GENIVI COMMUNITY MANAGER Pelagicore AB Ekelundsgatan 4, 6tr, SE-411 18 Gothenburg, Sweden M: +46 (0)73 093 0506 jeremiah.foster(a)pelagicore.com

4 6

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

mentors.ln