Qubes OS website license

178 views
Skip to first unread message

adrelanos

unread,
Feb 5, 2013, 7:19:45 AM2/5/13
to qubes...@googlegroups.com
Hi!

What's the license of content of of the Qubes OS website?

Cheers,
adrelanos

Joanna Rutkowska

unread,
Feb 5, 2013, 10:45:50 AM2/5/13
to qubes...@googlegroups.com, adrelanos
On 02/05/13 13:19, adrelanos wrote:
> Hi!
>
> What's the license of content of of the Qubes OS website?
>

Interesting question -- I've never thought about it before. I think it
would be reasonable to assume it's GPL... Any catches I might be missing?

Why do you ask, what's your use case?

joanna.


signature.asc

adrelanos

unread,
Feb 5, 2013, 11:22:31 AM2/5/13
to Joanna Rutkowska, qubes...@googlegroups.com
Joanna Rutkowska:
> On 02/05/13 13:19, adrelanos wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> What's the license of content of of the Qubes OS website?
>>
>
> Interesting question -- I've never thought about it before. I think it
> would be reasonable to assume it's GPL... Any catches I might be missing?

For me, if you could specify if it's GPLv1/2/3 without or with the or
(at your option) any later version, that would suffice.

There are no perfect solutions in licensing. It's a sad topic.

Wikipedia is using Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License,
which is incompatible with GPL. GNUFDL is incompatible with both and not
very popular due to issues with it. FreeBSD documentation license is
more permissive (compatible will all of them?) and CC0 is most
permissive, not even attribution required, compatible with all those
licenses.

But if anyone is not happy with GPL, they could contact you and you as
the copyright holder could always dual or multi license the content
under another license.

A community license (under which license contributions go), if you have
a license proxy (one granted a copyright to re-license) or not and such
is a whole different story.

> Why do you ask, what's your use case?

I like the "What do the Digital Signatures Prove and What They DO NOT
Prove" and like to re-use it for my project [2] with modification.

[1]
http://qubes-os.org/trac/wiki/VerifyingSignatures#WhatdotheDigitalSignaturesProveandWhatTheyDONOTProve
[2] http://whonix.sourceforge.net/

Joanna Rutkowska

unread,
Feb 6, 2013, 7:59:02 AM2/6/13
to adrelanos, qubes...@googlegroups.com
So, the main difference between GPL* and CC-* is that CC always require
the inclusion of the credits, while GPL does not, correct?

joanna.

signature.asc

adrelanos

unread,
Feb 6, 2013, 8:45:45 AM2/6/13
to Joanna Rutkowska, qubes...@googlegroups.com
Joanna Rutkowska:
> So, the main difference between GPL* and CC-* is that CC always require
> the inclusion of the credits, while GPL does not, correct?

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. This is a difficult topic,
I learned a lot about it and also contacted cc, but I could still be wrong.

No, they both require attribution.

(Corner case: Unless some special "no attribution required clause was
added". I've seen that for CC, not for GPL.)

GPL is always SA (share-alike) or in GPL jargon (copyleft), i.e. it must
always remain under that license. (Corner case: The copyright (creator)
holder releases under a different license.)

Only summary: There are many CC license and they are quite different.
From most permissive (CC0), to attribution only (ex: CC BY) to share
alike (copyleft) (ex: CC BY-SA) up to proprietary (ex: CC BY-NC-ND
(Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives)).

I mailed CC BY and asked... Using something under CC BY, you could:
1. take something licensed under CC-BY
2. make a derivative work
3. attribute the original work
4. distribute the derivative work under CC0.

So what's the difference between GPL (x) and CC BY-SA?
- License compatibility.
-
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/243196/what-is-the-difference-between-creative-commons-and-gpl-licensing

If you ask me, the law is broken. All license incompatibility comes from
outdated laws. For example, I'd like to release my documentation
compatible under GPLv3+ and under CC BY-SA (+?). I could dual license
it, but if someone forks it exclusively under CC BY-SA and I want to
include the improvements, I would have to drop GPLv3+, otherwise I
weren't allowed because they are incompatible. Therefore for now I stick
with GPLv3+ and act as copyright proxy. If anyone needs it under a
different license we work something clever out to remain compatible.

Joanna Rutkowska

unread,
Feb 8, 2013, 1:29:45 PM2/8/13
to adrelanos, qubes...@googlegroups.com
Ok, it's really hard for me to find time now and dig through all those
licenses and decide which one would be best for our wiki. I guess given
the nature of the project (GPL with propriety addons) the choice is
between some variant of CC-* license (by-sa?) vs. GNU FDL, but I somehow
fail to see what would be the main difference? Anybody willing to share
their thoughts/opinions on this (not-so-exciting-yet-important) subject?

joanna.
signature.asc

Joanna Rutkowska

unread,
Feb 8, 2013, 1:32:49 PM2/8/13
to adrelanos, qubes...@googlegroups.com
On 02/05/13 17:22, adrelanos wrote:
>> Why do you ask, what's your use case?
>
> I like the "What do the Digital Signatures Prove and What They DO NOT
> Prove" and like to re-use it for my project [2] with modification.
>
> [1]
> http://qubes-os.org/trac/wiki/VerifyingSignatures#WhatdotheDigitalSignaturesProveandWhatTheyDONOTProve
> [2] http://whonix.sourceforge.net/
>

So, just out of curiosity -- how would you compare your project with
Qubes (recently added) TorVM?

http://wiki.qubes-os.org/trac/wiki/UserDoc/TorVM

joanna.

signature.asc

syd bris

unread,
Feb 8, 2013, 6:02:58 PM2/8/13
to qubes...@googlegroups.com, adrelanos
Just to throw something else in here. There may be another way to use
tor - by installing a Linux distro like Tails that has an iceweasel
browser preconfigured to run tor. The Tails live ISO can already be
booted up and run in a HVM without installing as well - but getting
the network to work in the HVM needs some configuration.

adrelanos

unread,
Feb 8, 2013, 9:38:19 PM2/8/13
to syd bris, qubes...@googlegroups.com
That would work, but it wouldn't have the Tor separation, where Tor runs
for security reasons in an separate VM.

syd bris:

adrelanos

unread,
Feb 8, 2013, 9:51:12 PM2/8/13
to Joanna Rutkowska, qubes...@googlegroups.com
Joanna Rutkowska:
That's a big question and it's difficult to make a short answer. I think
the main advantage of TorVM over Whonix is, that TorVM is designed for
Qubes OS, which is said to be [1] more secure than Virtual Box. Whonix
is primarily designed for Virtual Box, but I tested that "it works for
me" in VMware as well and there is a recent report, that it's also
running in Qemu. There is also support for physical isolation, a two
machine setup without any virtualization. TorVM uses Fedora, needs less
space, thanks to Qubes OS, while Whonix focuses on Debian. Whonix has
more documentation and more security configurations.

There is a comparison of Whonix, Tails and the Tor Browser Bundle:
http://sourceforge.net/p/whonix/wiki/Comparison%20with%20Others/

Not yet with TorVM. I waited, for Abel to update it, but he seams
inactive right now so I will do faster.

[1] "said to be": I don't claim the skill to verify myself that Qubes OS
is safer than Virtual Box. Reasons sound convincing, but I am not one to
repeat what I have read in news articles. Qubes got quite good reviews...

adrelanos

unread,
Feb 8, 2013, 10:02:55 PM2/8/13
to Joanna Rutkowska, qubes...@googlegroups.com

I recognize it would be useful if someone else where to join this
discussion. Yet, I like to share some more.

Redistributing CC BY licensed work under BSD 2-Clause License?

Summary: It may be possible to take work under CC BY and relicense it
under the BSD 2-Clause License. (This won't work with CC BY-SA.)

https://sourceforge.net/p/whonix/featureblog/2013/02/redistributing-cc-by-licensed-work-under-bsd-2-clause-license-creativecommons-cc-cc-by-vs-cc-by-sa-vs-gpl/

Joanna Rutkowska:

adrelanos

unread,
Feb 8, 2013, 10:10:57 PM2/8/13
to Joanna Rutkowska, qubes...@googlegroups.com
Maybe ask the other way around... What license features do you want?
Features are:
- do whatever you like, no attribution or whatsoever required (public
domain, CC0, WTFPL)
- attribution only
- non-commercial only
- non-commercial only - ask if you want to have a commercial license
- only if you bought a license
- must open source code if you redistribute work based on the original work
- must always stay under this license
- may not be combined with other licenses
- disclaimer
- may be combined with other licenses as long as no further restrictions
are added
- may be combined with other licenses
- you may redistribute are derivative without releasing source code changes
- no derivative work allowed
- Invariant sections (GNU FDL)
- no patent treachery
- no DRM
- you may/may not link (compiler) to it
- ...

Joanna Rutkowska:

adrelanos

unread,
Feb 8, 2013, 10:18:16 PM2/8/13
to Joanna Rutkowska, qubes...@googlegroups.com
I recommend against GPL. Reading the wiki article [1] is enough as
introduction for reasons. It was/is considered unfree and difficult to
combine with anything else. I think it should only be considered for
book length documentation.

A good alternative to the GPL and CC may be BSD. Either BSD 2-Clause
License or FreeBSD Documentation License. They are simpler, can be read
faster and yet include a disclaimer and attribution requirement.
Compatible with most (if not all?) other licenses. Approved by FSF, OSI,
Debian, Fedora.

The BSD 2-Clause License
http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause

The FreeBSD Documentation License
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD_Documentation_License

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Invariant_sections

Joanna Rutkowska:

Joanna Rutkowska

unread,
Feb 9, 2013, 5:58:18 AM2/9/13
to adrelanos, qubes...@googlegroups.com
On 02/09/13 04:10, adrelanos wrote:
> Maybe ask the other way around... What license features do you want?
> Features are:
> - do whatever you like, no attribution or whatsoever required (public
> domain, CC0, WTFPL)
> - attribution only
> - non-commercial only
> - non-commercial only - ask if you want to have a commercial license
> - only if you bought a license
> - must open source code if you redistribute work based on the original work
> - must always stay under this license
> - may not be combined with other licenses
> - disclaimer
> - may be combined with other licenses as long as no further restrictions
> are added
> - may be combined with other licenses
> - you may redistribute are derivative without releasing source code changes
> - no derivative work allowed
> - Invariant sections (GNU FDL)
> - no patent treachery
> - no DRM
> - you may/may not link (compiler) to it
> - ...
>

Wait! I thought we've been talking about license for the wiki content
(i.e. documentation for Qubes OS), but you're throwing in terms such as
"source code", linking, etc? Qubes OS code is already licensed under GPL...

joanna.
signature.asc

adrelanos

unread,
Feb 10, 2013, 12:47:52 AM2/10/13
to Joanna Rutkowska, qubes...@googlegroups.com
Joanna Rutkowska:
> Wait! I thought we've been talking about license for the wiki content
> (i.e. documentation for Qubes OS), but you're throwing in terms such as
> "source code", linking, etc? Qubes OS code is already licensed under GPL...

One could argue the html code or wiki syntax is source code. Another one
could argue, that compiling the wiki content into an application is linking.

Zenny

unread,
Feb 10, 2013, 1:57:07 AM2/10/13
to qubes...@googlegroups.com
check with libérte linux (http://dee.su/Liberte) in VM, more reliable
than tails, imho. Disclaimer: I am not associated in any way with
liberte, fyi, so it is not shamless promotion! ;-)
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "qubes-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to qubes-devel...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

Zenny

unread,
Feb 10, 2013, 2:04:05 AM2/10/13
to qubes...@googlegroups.com
Good argument for copyright/patent trolls! The world has become so
difficult to distinguish between what is code and what is
documentation as you stated, adrelanos.

We need a lawyer, here now. ;-)

adrelanos

unread,
Mar 1, 2013, 4:57:50 PM3/1/13
to Joanna Rutkowska, qubes...@googlegroups.com
Hi,

ok, if there isn't any (fast) outcome of the "Qubes OS website license"
topic... (and not much other people interested either)

Could I have the single text "VerifyingSignatures" [1] under CC0 [2] please?

Cheers!
adrelanos

[1] http://qubes-os.org/trac/wiki/VerifyingSignatures
[2] http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Joanna Rutkowska

unread,
Mar 1, 2013, 5:21:16 PM3/1/13
to adrelanos, qubes...@googlegroups.com
Ah, I been busy with other things, such as Beta 2... Anyway, ok, please
consider this very wiki page under CC0. As for the rest of the wiki -- I
already asked a lawyer about it, so chances are high we will make some
move here.

joanna.

signature.asc

adrelanos

unread,
Mar 1, 2013, 5:30:09 PM3/1/13
to Joanna Rutkowska, qubes...@googlegroups.com
Joanna Rutkowska:
Thank you!

Patrick Schleizer

unread,
Jun 23, 2015, 4:51:15 PM6/23/15
to Joanna Rutkowska, qubes...@googlegroups.com, Patrick Schleizer
Joanna Rutkowska:
> As for the rest of the wiki -- I
already asked a lawyer about it, so chances are high we will make some
move here.

Any news about this?

Mind sharing what the lawyer said or your conclusion / decision on Qubes
OS website license?

What's the Qubes OS website license?

Cheers,
Patrick

Joanna Rutkowska

unread,
Jun 24, 2015, 3:00:19 AM6/24/15
to Patrick Schleizer, Michael Carbone, qubes...@googlegroups.com, Patrick Schleizer, Marek Marczykowski
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The lawyer I consulted some time ago didn't provide any meaningful insight, heh ;)

I think Micheal would have much more to say on this than myself...

joanna.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=k7RF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Michael

unread,
Jun 24, 2015, 5:40:34 PM6/24/15
to qubes...@googlegroups.com
Joanna Rutkowska:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 08:50:50PM +0000, Patrick Schleizer wrote:
>> Joanna Rutkowska:
>>> As for the rest of the wiki -- I
>> already asked a lawyer about it, so chances are high we will make some
>> move here.
>
>> Any news about this?
>
>> Mind sharing what the lawyer said or your conclusion / decision on Qubes
>> OS website license?
>
>> What's the Qubes OS website license?
>
>
> The lawyer I consulted some time ago didn't provide any meaningful insight, heh ;)
>
> I think Micheal would have much more to say on this than myself...
>
> joanna.
>
Hi folks,

For website content, I think CC-BY-4.0 is very suitable:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

* it is an international license
* attribution is nice because then if folks re-use the content, users
can follow up by visiting the Qubes website

Some other sites that also use CC-BY include:

* Tor Project website content
<https://www.torproject.org/docs/trademark-faq.html.en>
* EFF website content <https://www.eff.org/copyright>

As mentioned earlier in this thread, this does not impact/cover the
Qubes code itself, just the website content.

Michael

signature.asc
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages