Re: wpoison, is it okay?
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 01:35:48PM +, Sunnanvind wrote: > Er, no, that's not how you read it. You conjectured just like I did. > The actual license text says nothing of the sort. Ehm, yes. That's what I meant. Sorry. > > Here, I disagree. > > This is a different situation since in the case of Zope, the button > would > > be forcibly placed; with your interpretation of how this license is > > intended (as opposed to what it says - again, it has to be cleaned > up), > > Look, a copyright holder can "intend" to put his work under the MIT > license, but if his actual license text consists of the GNU GPL, guess > while one is binding upon the users? The GPL of course; that's why I did say that it has to be cleaned up (and I did mean before it's admitted into Debian, but I was unclear there). > Where license text is not DFSG-free, but the author's intentions are, > it > is best to get the author to rewrite his license. Of course... > License texts are legal documents and anyone who takes it upon him- or > herself to write one needs to be damn careful about it. ... and of course. > > it's only if you include the logo on your page, and what would be the > > reason to do that if you wouldn't link to the wpoison page? > > People might have all sorts of reasons. Maybe they'd want to point the > link to a rival, forked wpoison project. Maybe they just don't like > image tags inside href's. The way I conjecture the license writers intentions; you still can point to a rival, forket wpoison project *as long as you don't use the official image*; and if you don't like image links, just don't link to the page at all (in which case, don't use the logo). > > This is a small requirement not much different from the new BSD- > > license's "always include this notice in the source code" > requirement. > > No, it's very different from the "always include this notice in the > source code" requirement. It's more similar to the BSD advertising > clause which was retracted by the University of California. The way I read the BSD-license, people can't just take the code, remove the notice and say "Hey, I wrote this!". It requires credit where credit is due (much like the GPL). I interpret what I suspect is the intended requirements (which, yet again, is not written clearly enough) as "If you use the image on a web page, you must link to the official wpoison page". (Whether software like that should go into main or non-free, I don't know, but I do not see it as a reason to reject it from non-free.) What's written can also be interpreted as "If you use this program, you must display a linked logo on your web page". (Very similar to the zope case; but unlike the zope case it's doesn't break dfsg 3, which zope would've done since it would automatically put the picture there and non- removability of that code would break dfsg 3. [That might've been a misunderstanding from me.]) In this case, I guess main would be out of the question, but how about non-free? For the eight time (or so, I don't keep count), yes; the license has to be restated clearly before a decision can be made. The reason I even entered this discussion was the "hyperlinks in an image"-part which I believed was just a simple mistake on your part. I beg your pardon for any percieved rudeness, I mean no ill vibes. The obnoxious advertising, old BSD-license is listed by the FSF as a free software license; GPL-incompatible but free. I don't know what Bruce has said about it since I haven't had time to read all of the archives from all of the debian lists yet. Sunnanvind (doesn't want to be voted off the island)
Re: wpoison, is it okay?
"Sunnanvind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The way I conjecture the license writers intentions; you still can point > to a rival, forket wpoison project *as long as you don't use the official > image*; and if you don't like image links, just don't link to the page at > all (in which case, don't use the logo). That may be the intention. It is, however, not what the license says. > The way I read the BSD-license, people can't just take the code, remove > the notice and say "Hey, I wrote this!". It requires credit where credit > is due (much like the GPL). Well, you read it wrong. What it says is that if you do any advertising, you have a positive obligation to include a special sentence (with particular words) in the advertising. Such a requirement does not make the software non-free, though it is incompatible with the GPL. BSD eventually removed the requirement. The wpoison license, by contrast, seems to require such an advertisement *always*--whether that's what they intended, or not. That not only makes it nonfree, it also means we can't distribute it in non-free. > What's written can also be interpreted as "If you use this program, you > must display a linked logo on your web page". (Very similar to the zope > case; but unlike the zope case it's doesn't break dfsg 3, which zope > would've done since it would automatically put the picture there and non- > removability of that code would break dfsg 3. [That might've been a > misunderstanding from me.]) In this case, I guess main would be out of > the question, but how about non-free? That's what's written. If you want it in non-free, then you have to comply with that requirement. And golly, where are you planning on putting that link?
GPL version 1, and "Copyright (c) ...."
Hi again. I've just adopted 'oo-browser' which is licensed as follows: (source file BR-COPY) === * Copyright === The following copyright applies to the OO-Browser software. Copyright (C) 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 BeOpen.com and the Free Software Foundation, Inc. The OO-Browser is available for use, modification, and distribution under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) Version 1 as published by the Free Software Foundation, with all rights and responsibilities thereof. See the GNU General Public License for more details. If you need a copy, write to the Free Software Foundation, 675 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA. The OO-Browser is offered in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. === There is no copy of GPL Version 1 included with the source. The other files that mention copyright refer to 'BR-COPY' for their copyright and distribution license (with one exception, which I'll get to in Q2 below). Q1: Is it OK for us to distribute oo-browser with the above text in the 'copyright' file, without also distributing a copy of GPL version 1? Q1.1: If not, do you know where I can find a copy? It's not obvious at gnu.org. Q2.: There is *one* file in the source package that contains this (verbatim): "Copyright (c) \n\nMore legal stuff, stuff, stuff and stuff" Fortunately, that file is not used to build the debian binary package, but (unless I alter the upstream source package) we'll still be distributing it (in fact we have been distributing it since September 1999) in the source package. What(if anything) should I do about that? I have written to the upstream author, but (so far) he has not replied. Thanks for your advice.
Re: GDB manual
On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 09:56:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > 04:40am [EMAIL PROTECTED]/0 [~/gdb-5.1/gdb/doc] grep -i invariant *.info > > > gdb.info:Invariant Sections being "A Sample GDB Session" and "Free > > > Software", > > > gdbint.info:Invariant Sections being "Algorithms" and "Porting GDB", with > > > the > > > stabs.info:Invariant Sections being "Stabs Types" and "Stabs Sections", > > > with the > > > > Oh, bother. I'll point those out to rms. > > This is news to you, eh? Remember when you said that yes, you DO read > my mails? > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > That's a week ago... It's where *I* found out about it. :) (But, realistically speaking, it was in the middle of a large glob of license texts; it was easy to miss.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: GPL version 1, and "Copyright (c) ...."
I have subsequently found a copy of the GPL version 1 (in the vm source package), and will distribute it in the oo-browser package; so the only remaining question is: David Coe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Q2.: There is *one* file in the source package that contains this > (verbatim): > > "Copyright (c) \n\nMore legal stuff, stuff, stuff and stuff" > > Fortunately, that file is not used to build the debian binary package, > but (unless I alter the upstream source package) we'll still be > distributing it (in fact we have been distributing it since September > 1999) in the source package. What(if anything) should I do about > that?
Re: GPL version 1, and "Copyright (c) ...."
David Coe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have subsequently found a copy of the GPL version 1 (in the vm > source package), and will distribute it in the oo-browser package; so > the only remaining question is: > > David Coe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Q2.: There is *one* file in the source package that contains this > > (verbatim): > > > > "Copyright (c) \n\nMore legal stuff, stuff, stuff and stuff" > > > > Fortunately, that file is not used to build the debian binary package, > > but (unless I alter the upstream source package) we'll still be > > distributing it (in fact we have been distributing it since September > > 1999) in the source package. What(if anything) should I do about > > that? Is that the actual text of the file? If so, it seems to assert copyright, but doesn't grant any license. We should not be distributing it.
Re: GPL version 1, and "Copyright (c) ...."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > Is that the actual text of the file? > > If so, it seems to assert copyright, but doesn't grant any license. > We should not be distributing it. Yes, that's the actual text, but I think it was an upstream [non]editing error... Here's the relevant chunk of that file (tree-w32/oobr.rc). It's for a platform we don't build on (win32), and is written in a programming language I don't recognize (indented two spaces here, but otherwise unchanged): IDD_ABOUT DIALOGEX 40, 24, 186, 94 STYLE DS_MODALFRAME | WS_POPUP | WS_CAPTION | WS_SYSMENU CAPTION "About OO Browser" FONT 8, "MS Sans Serif" BEGIN DEFPUSHBUTTON "OK",IDOK,129,7,50,14 ICONIDI_OOBR,IDC_STATIC,7,7,20,20 CTEXT "OO Browser Graphical Viewer\n\nCopyright (c) \n\nMore legal stuff, stuff, stuff and stuff", IDC_STATIC,7,33,172,54,0,WS_EX_STATICEDGE END That is the *only* file in the "tree-w32" subdirectory that mentions the words "copyright" or "license," so I suspect this was a editing error upstream, not an attempt to claim a different copyright. The documents in the parent directory do claim copyright on the whole thing and license it under GPL version 1. (from file BR-README:) [...] # Copyright (C) 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 BeOpen.com and the Free Software Foundation, Inc. # # See the file "BR-COPY" for license and support information. # # This file is part of the OO-Browser. [...] See the "BR-COPY" file for license information. See the "MANIFEST" file for summaries of the OO-Browser files. [...] (and from file MANIFEST:) [...] --- GRAPHICAL BROWSER --- tree-w32/ - Source and executable for the Windows system OO-Browser interface. (Not included with UNIX distributions of the OO-Browser.) tree-x/ - Source and executable for the X window system OO-Browser interface. (Not included as part of the MS Windows OO-Browser.) [...] (Note when he says "Not included with Unix distributions..." he's apparently talking about the binary-only distributions he also makes, because both the X window and Microsoft Windows source trees *are* included in the source distribution.) So, I think I've convinced myself that oobr.rc just contains a partially- filled-in copyright template, and was probably released that way by mistake. (The upstream author has not as yet answered my questions.) Is that good enough to allow us to continue distributing that file, or should I go to the trouble of removing it (which is somewhat painful since it's been in our distribution this way for over two years)? Thanks.
Re: GPL version 1, and "Copyright (c) ...."
David Coe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, I think I've convinced myself that oobr.rc just contains a partially- > filled-in copyright template, and was probably released that way > by mistake. (The upstream author has not as yet answered my questions.) That's as well as may be, but it's not intention that governs but the actual license, which seems to be missing. > Is that good enough to allow us to continue distributing that file, or > should I go to the trouble of removing it (which is somewhat painful > since it's been in our distribution this way for over two years)? I'm not sure we should worry about history. It's not too much trouble to delete it from all future releases. Give the upstream author a chance first; how long has it been since you asked him about the file? (And deleting it requires actually taking it out of the "unmodified" .tar.gz; merely dropping it via patch won't be sufficient when it's a legal question that's in doubt.)
Re: GPL version 1, and "Copyright (c) ...."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > I'm not sure we should worry about history. It's not too much trouble > to delete it from all future releases. Give the upstream author a > chance first; how long has it been since you asked him about the file? Less than 48 hours; how long do you recommend I wait? > (And deleting it requires actually taking it out of the "unmodified" > .tar.gz; merely dropping it via patch won't be sufficient when it's a > legal question that's in doubt.) This I know. Thanks.
Re: GPL version 1, and "Copyright (c) ...."
David Coe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > > > I'm not sure we should worry about history. It's not too much trouble > > to delete it from all future releases. Give the upstream author a > > chance first; how long has it been since you asked him about the file? > > Less than 48 hours; how long do you recommend I wait? Oh, many weeks. There's no big rush.
