Re: Microcode license [#3]

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 05:02:30PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Contrib is an official part of Debian, 

Only in the same sense that non-free is (ie, it's not part of the Debian
Distribution, but it's still distributed by the Debian project).

See item 1 of the social contract ``..., but we will never make the system
depend on an item of non-free software.'' or item 5 ``We have created
"contrib" and "non-free" areas in our FTP archive for this software. The
software in these directories is not part of the Debian system, ...''

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
  -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)


pgpLALw6Bn4v2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Microcode license [#3]

[Raul Miller]

On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 05:02:30PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Contrib is an official part of Debian, 

On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 04:33:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Only in the same sense that non-free is (ie, it's not part of the Debian
> Distribution, but it's still distributed by the Debian project).
> 
> See item 1 of the social contract ``..., but we will never make the system
> depend on an item of non-free software.'' or item 5 ``We have created
> "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our FTP archive for this software. The
> software in these directories is not part of the Debian system, ...''

I stand corrected.

However, I'll mention that contrib is safe to put on the official debian
cdrom images (or dvd images, if we decide to go that way) while non-free
is not (except by considering the issues on a case-by-case basis).

-- 
Raul

Toba license: free/GPL compatible?

[Fred Gray]

Dear debian-legal eagles,

Can I ask for your opinion on the following license, used for the Toba 
Java-to-C translator?  When read in plain English, it is certainly DFSG-free
and GPL-compatible.  However, is the language sufficiently clear on the issue 
of distributing modified copies, or is there a potential "Pine problem" here?

Thanks very much,

-- Fred Gray

Copyright 1997 Arizona Board of Regents, all rights reserved.

This software is being provided by the copyright holders under the
following license. By obtaining, using and/or copying this software, you
agree that you have read, understood, and will comply with the following
terms and conditions:

Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
documentation for any purpose and without fee or royalty is hereby granted,
provided that the full text of this notice appears on all copies of the
software and documentation or portions thereof, including modifications,
that you make.

This software is provided "as is," and copyright holders make no
representations or warranties, express or implied. By way of example, but
not limitation, copyright holders make no representations or warranties of
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose or that the use of the
software or documentation will not infringe any third party patents,
copyrights, trademarks or other rights. Copyright holders will bear no
liability for any use of this software or documentation.

The name and trademarks of copyright holders may not be used in advertising
or publicity pertaining to the software without specific, written prior
permission. Title to copyright in this software and any associated
documentation will at all times remain with copyright holders.

Re: Toba license: free/GPL compatible?

[Sam TH]

On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 11:50:29AM -0500, Fred Gray wrote:
> Dear debian-legal eagles,
> 
> Can I ask for your opinion on the following license, used for the Toba 
> Java-to-C translator?  When read in plain English, it is certainly DFSG-free
> and GPL-compatible.  However, is the language sufficiently clear on the issue 
> of distributing modified copies, or is there a potential "Pine problem" here?

This certainly looks both DFSG-free and GPL-compatible.  The use of
the word 'and' rather than 'or' seems to take care of the Pine problem  

> 
> Thanks very much,
> 
> 
> Copyright 1997 Arizona Board of Regents, all rights reserved.
> 
> This software is being provided by the copyright holders under the
> following license. By obtaining, using and/or copying this software, you
> agree that you have read, understood, and will comply with the following
> terms and conditions:
> 
> Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
> documentation for any purpose and without fee or royalty is hereby granted,
> provided that the full text of this notice appears on all copies of the
> software and documentation or portions thereof, including modifications,
> that you make.
> 
> This software is provided "as is," and copyright holders make no
> representations or warranties, express or implied. By way of example, but
> not limitation, copyright holders make no representations or warranties of
> merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose or that the use of the
> software or documentation will not infringe any third party patents,
> copyrights, trademarks or other rights. Copyright holders will bear no
> liability for any use of this software or documentation.
> 
> The name and trademarks of copyright holders may not be used in advertising
> or publicity pertaining to the software without specific, written prior
> permission. Title to copyright in this software and any associated
> documentation will at all times remain with copyright holders.
> 
> 

   
sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.dyndns.org/decss



pgpasevmhwqXd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Toba license: free/GPL compatible?

[Fred Gray]

On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 12:24:46PM -0500, Sam TH wrote:
> 
> This certainly looks both DFSG-free and GPL-compatible.  The use of
> the word 'and' rather than 'or' seems to take care of the Pine problem  
> 

Quoting from the Pine FAQ (http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/legal.html#10.2):

  In particular, the earliest Pine licenses included the words: "Permission to 
  use, copy, modify, and distribute this software... is hereby granted," but 
  some people tried to pervert the meaning of that sentence to define "this 
  software" to include derivative works of "this software".

So, apparently the Pine license also used the word "and."  Hmmph.

Thanks,

-- Fred

Re: Toba license: free/GPL compatible?

[Sam TH]

On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 12:34:02PM -0500, Fred Gray wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 12:24:46PM -0500, Sam TH wrote:
> > 
> > This certainly looks both DFSG-free and GPL-compatible.  The use of
> > the word 'and' rather than 'or' seems to take care of the Pine problem  
> > 
> 
> Quoting from the Pine FAQ 
> (http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/legal.html#10.2):
> 
>   In particular, the earliest Pine licenses included the words: "Permission 
> to 
>   use, copy, modify, and distribute this software... is hereby granted," but 
>   some people tried to pervert the meaning of that sentence to define "this 
>   software" to include derivative works of "this software".
> 
> So, apparently the Pine license also used the word "and."  Hmmph.

I think that's a bullshit license interpretation.  The terms of a
non-negotiated license are construed against the drafter.  All the
same, you might want to get a clarification for your license.  
   
sam th --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.dyndns.org/decss



pgphOQIkGGzFL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: libfpx licensing

[Filip Van Raemdonck]

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 04:16:06PM -0600, Walter Landry wrote:
> > I am working on a package for libfpx - the FlashPIX toolkit. I'm not sure
> > about the license of the library though.
> > Is it DFSG free?

GPL code which states "May be linked with libfpx" is OK I suppose? I will
probably write a viewer that uses this, and I'd like to use GPL anyway if
possible (due to the incompatibility it would not be possible to extend an
existing GPLed viewer).

This brings up something else: if I'm correct, I wouldn't have to mention the
use of libfpx if I would use some license that is compatible; however, if I
do use GPL and put the linking statement there, is that enough to have to
comply to the 4th clause in the license?

Regards,

Filip

--
... Long Live Free Software, LIBERTAS OMNI VINCIT.


pgpl6qVZ02bwx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: libfpx licensing

[Walter Landry]

> On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 04:16:06PM -0600, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > I am working on a package for libfpx - the FlashPIX toolkit. I'm not sure
> > > about the license of the library though.
> > > Is it DFSG free?
> 
> GPL code which states "May be linked with libfpx" is OK I suppose? I will
> probably write a viewer that uses this, and I'd like to use GPL anyway if
> possible (due to the incompatibility it would not be possible to extend an
> existing GPLed viewer).

That's fine.  One phrasing I found at www.gnu.org is

  As a special exception, you have permission to link this program
  with the FOO library and distribute executables, as long as you
  follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the
  software in the executable aside from FOO.

It has been suggested by many that it would be good to have something
that says that you may, if you so choose, get rid of the exception.
The idea being that if someone makes a free replacement for the
library, or just incorporates the code into a completely different
program, it would be nice to get rid of the exception.

> This brings up something else: if I'm correct, I wouldn't have to mention the
> use of libfpx if I would use some license that is compatible; however, if I
> do use GPL and put the linking statement there, is that enough to have to
> comply to the 4th clause in the license?

In the context of Debian, you would probably only have to mention the
use of libfpx in the description of any program that uses it.  That is
basically the description file.  Annoying, but not the end of the
world.

Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]