On Friday 01 January 2010 5:11:09 pm Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 03:13:58PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > On Friday 01 January 2010 2:57:18 pm Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > /* ============================================================ > > > > > > > > Copyright (c) 2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved. > > > > > > > > Redistribution and use of this material is permitted under the following > > > > conditions: > > > > > > I cannot find any permission to modify or distribute modified versions > > > of the file. > > > This seems to fail DFSG#3. > > > What?! The grant is /right/ there... "Redistribution and use of this > > material is permitted" provided the following criteria are met, and then > > it lists the criteria. I suppose it could be its own little bullet point, > > but that sure seems explicit to me. That you failed to see that as a grant > > really calls into question the neutrality of the rest of your license > > evaluation. > > The grant covers redistribution and use. It's my understanding that neither > "redistribution" nor "use" encompasses modifications under copyright law, > and Debian has consistently required an explicit grant of permission to > modify and to distribute the resulting modified works in order to be > considered DFSG-compliant.
You are quite right... I failed to notice Francesco was talking just about /modification/. That certainly is a problem and clearly runs afoul of DFSG #3. My apologies. > > > > THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE USED, RELEASED, TRANSFERRED, > > > > IMPORTED, > > > > EXPORTED AND/OR RE-EXPORTED IN ANY MANNER PROHIBITED UNDER ANY > > > > APPLICABLE LAWS, > > > > INCLUDING U.S. EXPORT CONTROL LAWS REGARDING SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED > > > > PERSONS, > > > > COUNTRIES AND NATIONALS OF COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO NATIONAL SECURITY > > > > CONTROLS. > > > > Enforcing export control laws (or other laws), through a copyright > > > license is not a good thing to do, IMHO. > > > I think that, if I violate some export control law, I should be > > > prosecuted for breaching that law, without *also* having to face > > > copyright violation suits. > > > > Not saying I disagree, but your position on how export laws should be > > enforced really isn't at issue here. The problem AMD is addressing here is > > third party liability if someone where to violate US export laws. Is this > > clause really any different than "you aren't allowed to do anything > > illegal with this software?" > > No, it's not different at all - and a license that says "you aren't allowed > to do anything illegal with this software" is *not* DFSG-compliant. Civil > disobedience should not result in violations of the copyright licenses of > software in Debian. Really?! How delightfully libertarian. I guess all I can do is reiterate my position that I don't think the DFSG should be read that way and hope that the FTP masters continue to show less political and more pragmatic evaluation :) -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@probonogeek.org w: http://blog.probonogeek.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
