PornView suspected to have stolen lots of code from GImageView

[Oliver M. Bolzer]

Hi!

I think we all remember the controversy around pornview's introduction
into Debian because of it's name. It's currently in the archieves but
there are reasons to believe pornview is infringing the copyright
(and open source ethics) of another image viewer also in our archives.
GImageView.

Both softwares are GPL, the fact that Pornview uses a lot of GImageView's code
verbatim or with modifications per se is not a problem, but Pornview has 
stripped the original copyright notices and also doing things
like s/GImageView//g from variable and function names.

GImageView's author's diary pages lists some of the
suspicious files and changes (the page is in Japanese)
http://www.homa.ne.jp/~ashie/diary/?200212b&to=200212122#200212122

According to this diary, after being confronted, the author of pornview
stopped providing his development version and CVS access.

We should pull pornview from the archives until a version is released
that adresses this issue, either by removing the problematic code or
until the proper copyright notices are restored.

-- 
Oliver M. Bolzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

GPG (PGP) Fingerprint = 621B 52F6 2AC1 36DB 8761  018F 8786 87AD EF50 D1FF


pgpZizg44E7mI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is this a free license?

[Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS]

Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Microsoft takes a bunch away, with the case of qmail, you *didn't*
> purchase anything, and you have no rights to copy *anything*--to even
> *get* the first copy--except under the terms of the license.

Do all download sites force you to read the licence before you
download the tarball? If not, I would guess that by default you do
have the right to download the tarball and do what you want with it in
private.

Arguing from common sense here, consider the case of someone who knows
C but doesn't know English. It would seem very unfair for them to be
punished merely for downloading the tar ball, editing the code,
compiling it and running it.

> The purchaser of a copy gets certain rights, and can't have those
> restricted without a real contract--that's Dan's argument.  But it
> doesn't apply to something where you *didn't* purchase anything and
> you *don't* have those rights.

Are you saying that payment changes the situation here?

Consider these cases:

1) I download a file from an ftp site without being asked to agree to
anything first.

2) Someone puts a CD through my door or hands one to me at random on
the street.

3) I buy a CD.

Are you saying I have the right to modify the software in case 3, but
not in case 1? If so, what about case 2?

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> The remainder of the page discusses the requirements for distribution of
> modified versions.  Distributing the tarball, patches, and a script to
> compile them is not distribution of a modified version.

A court might consider it to be just that in effect.

It's like the frequently discussed case of someone distributing a
script to compile and link GPL code with GPL-incompatible code. It's
possible to argue quite convincingly on both sides of that discussion.

> On , Dan states explicitly:
> 
> | Note that, since it's not copyright infringement for you to apply a
> | patch, it's also not copyright infringement for someone to give you a
> | patch.

If this is the copyright holder speaking, then this looks like a
clarification of the licence, so in the case of qmail he has probably
made it true. However, I'm not sure whether it's true in general.

Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> I would note that patch files for software are generally thought to be
> derivative works, and so I don't see any basis for his claim that they
> are not.

If I make a list of errata for someone else's book, am I infringing? I
hope not.

I agree that if the patch is part of a script whose purpose is to
create modified binaries of a program whose author has specifically
disallowed modified binaries then that is potentially a problem, but
if the patch file is distributed for research purposes I would hope
that would be all right.

Edmund

GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

[Steve Langasek]

Hello,

What is the list's opinion of this entry in the FSF's GPL FAQ?

   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat

Does the argument that a script is "just data" really hold water legally?
I would think they are "just data" in the same sense that all binary
executables are "just data" to a kernel; yet the vendors of proprietary
Unices have always gone out of their way to make sure GPL software is not
shipped together with their kernel, in order to take advantage of the
GPL's "OS component" exception.

I would think that the real protection the GPL provides for such scripts
is in fact the OS component exception, since such scripts are rarely
distributed together with their GPL-incompatible interpreters; but of
course, this means that Debian is not able to take advantage of this
protection, just as we cannot distribute GPL applications linked against
OpenSSL without an exemption from the copyright holder.

If this is the case, there are a number of GPL PHP packages in Debian
which would need to be examined.  I don't believe that licensing a PHP
script under the GPL can be seen as implicit permission to distribute the
script together with the interpreter, if this can be understood as
prohibited by the letter of the license.  In particular, the history of
phpnuke and its author, as well as the text of the package's copyright
file, make me wary of possible repercussions.

Regards,
-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgp6NplUXtS8Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature

licence verification for the Bewan ADSL modem driver.

[Sven Luther]

Hello, ...

Some time ago i asked a question about a driver containing proprietary
closed source code.

I now got a licence proposal from Bewan :


Program code and documentation are
(C) Copyright 2002 BeWAN systems
All rights reserved.

This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

In addition, as a special exception, BeWAN systems gives permission 
to link the code of this program with the modem SW library 
(modem_ant_PCI.o, modem_ant_USB.o), and distribute linked combinations 
including the two. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all 
respects for all of the code used other than the modem SW library.

See the file COPYING.GPL for details.


The response i got from this list at the time was that it was ok to
licence the code under the GPL and to add an additional exception for
the proprietary part like is done here, in order to put the package into
debian/non-free.

I distribute only the source in a debian conform
kernel-module-source package.

So, is there something wrong with the wording of this licence or
something other i did miss ?

BTW, i think there is, since this allow us to distribute the binary
package but not the not linked proprietary part, right ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: PornView suspected to have stolen lots of code from GImageView

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit "Oliver M. Bolzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Both softwares are GPL, the fact that Pornview uses a lot of
> GImageView's code verbatim or with modifications per se is not a
> problem, but Pornview has stripped the original copyright notices
> and also doing things like s/GImageView//g from variable and
> function names.

Stripping copyright notices is a severe problem, I agree. But the
changing of identifiers, be it systematic or manual, is in my opinion
within the right of modification that GPL grants (and is indeed meant
to protect).

> We should pull pornview from the archives until a version is released
> that adresses this issue,

Agreed (if your information is true).

-- 
Henning Makholm"Detta, sade de, vore rena sanningen;
 ty de kunde tala sanning lika väl som någon
 annan, när de bara visste vad det tjänade til."

Re: Is this a free license?

[David Turner]

On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 20:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Courts care not about the technical details of *how* you copy, but the
> > fact that you copy.  You cannot copy qmail *at all* if you are making a
> > modified binary with it.  This means you cannot copy qmail and then do
> > with it what you want to.
> 
> > And you cannot go out of your way to help someone else do it, if you
> > know they would be violating the copyright (that's called contributory
> > infringement).
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I believe you instead of Dan?  Do you have a counter to the
> cite of Galoob v. Nintendo?

I do: Micro Star v. Formgen.  In Nintendo v. Galoob, there was no
derivative work "fixed in tangible form."  In Micro Star, there was. 
IMO, that's far closer to the current case than Nintendo v. Galoob.  

-- 
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668

"The coked-up Hollyweird fatcats hate Turing Machines." 
 -Murray, _0wnz0red_, Cory Doctorow

Re: Is this a free license?

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > Microsoft takes a bunch away, with the case of qmail, you *didn't*
> > purchase anything, and you have no rights to copy *anything*--to even
> > *get* the first copy--except under the terms of the license.
> 
> Do all download sites force you to read the licence before you
> download the tarball? If not, I would guess that by default you do
> have the right to download the tarball and do what you want with it in
> private.
>
> Arguing from common sense here, consider the case of someone who knows
> C but doesn't know English. It would seem very unfair for them to be
> punished merely for downloading the tar ball, editing the code,
> compiling it and running it.

If that's true, then we might as well go home, the GPL is then
unenforceable.

But actually, the law says that if they have no information, then they
should assume that they have *no* right to download the tarball.

> Are you saying that payment changes the situation here?

It establishes that the provider of the copy really wanted to provide
it.  An explicit gift would do as well.

> 1) I download a file from an ftp site without being asked to agree to
> anything first.

Yes, but not without copying, and the copyright owner still has
copyright, and you are breaking it.

> 2) Someone puts a CD through my door or hands one to me at random on
> the street.
> 3) I buy a CD.

Case 2 and 3 have the same results; you didn't copy anything, and you
legally obtained the copy you do have.

> Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > I would note that patch files for software are generally thought to be
> > derivative works, and so I don't see any basis for his claim that they
> > are not.
> 
> If I make a list of errata for someone else's book, am I infringing? I
> hope not.

Why?  Who cares if you are?  You think they are going to punish you?
I tap my roommate on the shoulder all the time.  And--omigod--that
might be assault?!  Yes, indeed.  But so what.  Is he going to prefer
charges?  No.

> I agree that if the patch is part of a script whose purpose is to
> create modified binaries of a program whose author has specifically
> disallowed modified binaries then that is potentially a problem, but
> if the patch file is distributed for research purposes I would hope
> that would be all right.

"research purposes" have to be real.  The court will ask what your
research is, and if it amounts to a smokescreen for the illegal
copying, the court will be quite annoyed at the dishonesty...

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Does the argument that a script is "just data" really hold water legally?
> I would think they are "just data" in the same sense that all binary
> executables are "just data" to a kernel; yet the vendors of proprietary
> Unices have always gone out of their way to make sure GPL software is not
> shipped together with their kernel, in order to take advantage of the
> GPL's "OS component" exception.

That's exactly what the text says in fact, in qualifying the "just
data" statement.

Re: Is this a free license?

[Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS]

Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> > Arguing from common sense here, consider the case of someone who knows
> > C but doesn't know English. It would seem very unfair for them to be
> > punished merely for downloading the tar ball, editing the code,
> > compiling it and running it.
> 
> If that's true, then we might as well go home, the GPL is then
> unenforceable.

What? How?

> But actually, the law says that if they have no information, then they
> should assume that they have *no* right to download the tarball.

Would you apply the same argument to the file /index.html on a public
web server?

> > 1) I download a file from an ftp site without being asked to agree to
> > anything first.
> 
> Yes, but not without copying, and the copyright owner still has
> copyright, and you are breaking it.

I would guess that making something available by anonymous ftp or http
with no password implies permission to download. It even seems to
imply permission to store and redistribute from a caching proxy server
or a search engine. There have been debates about these last two
cases, but I've never heard of people being sued for using a web
browser. Perhaps you should go after the people who distribute web
browsers, seeing as they are encouraging people to download content
without prior permission.

Obviously it's different if the downloader knows the material is
illegal.

Edmund

Re: PornView suspected to have stolen lots of code from GImageView

[Brian Nelson]

"Oliver M. Bolzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I think we all remember the controversy around pornview's introduction
> into Debian because of it's name. It's currently in the archieves but
> there are reasons to believe pornview is infringing the copyright
> (and open source ethics) of another image viewer also in our archives.
> GImageView.
>
> Both softwares are GPL, the fact that Pornview uses a lot of GImageView's code
> verbatim or with modifications per se is not a problem, but Pornview has 
> stripped the original copyright notices and also doing things
> like s/GImageView//g from variable and function names.
>
> GImageView's author's diary pages lists some of the
> suspicious files and changes (the page is in Japanese)
> http://www.homa.ne.jp/~ashie/diary/?200212b&to=200212122#200212122
>
> According to this diary, after being confronted, the author of pornview
> stopped providing his development version and CVS access.
>
> We should pull pornview from the archives until a version is released
> that adresses this issue, either by removing the problematic code or
> until the proper copyright notices are restored.

The pornview author has already made a new release that fixes the
copyright violations and also notified me of this problem with the
version currently in Debian.

-- 
Curse my natural showmanship!


pgpCXz7lOCkyA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:05:09AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Does the argument that a script is "just data" really hold water legally?
> > I would think they are "just data" in the same sense that all binary
> > executables are "just data" to a kernel; yet the vendors of proprietary
> > Unices have always gone out of their way to make sure GPL software is not
> > shipped together with their kernel, in order to take advantage of the
> > GPL's "OS component" exception.

> That's exactly what the text says in fact, in qualifying the "just
> data" statement.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure if your comments support or contradict my
interpretation.  By "the text", do you mean the text of the GPL, or the
text of the FAQ?  The GPL doesn't talk about data at all, and the only
qualification in the FAQ is with reference to using GPL-incompatible
bindings from a GPL script.

My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a GPL script together
with a GPL-incompatible interpreter is acceptable.  Interpreters seem to
fall into a gap in the source code definition of section three, somewhere
between "all the source code for all modules it contains, plus associated
interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation
and installation of the executable" and "the major components (compiler,
kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs".
If an exception is needed for the compiler and kernel, is an exception
not also needed for an interpreter?

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgp3MDBPwHymN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: licence verification for the Bewan ADSL modem driver.

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 05:58:33PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:

> 
> Program code and documentation are
> (C) Copyright 2002 BeWAN systems
> All rights reserved.
> 
> This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> (at your option) any later version.
> 
> In addition, as a special exception, BeWAN systems gives permission 
> to link the code of this program with the modem SW library 
> (modem_ant_PCI.o, modem_ant_USB.o), and distribute linked combinations 
> including the two. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all 
> respects for all of the code used other than the modem SW library.
> 
> See the file COPYING.GPL for details.
> 

> The response i got from this list at the time was that it was ok to
> licence the code under the GPL and to add an additional exception for
> the proprietary part like is done here, in order to put the package into
> debian/non-free.

> I distribute only the source in a debian conform
> kernel-module-source package.

> So, is there something wrong with the wording of this licence or
> something other i did miss ?

> BTW, i think there is, since this allow us to distribute the binary
> package but not the not linked proprietary part, right ?

Do we have permission to redistribute modem_ant_PCI.o and
modem_ant_USB.o?  That's the only thing I don't see in this license.  Is
that permission granted elsewhere?

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpykGN6zV3ew.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

[Walter Landry]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:05:09AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 
> > > Does the argument that a script is "just data" really hold water legally?
> > > I would think they are "just data" in the same sense that all binary
> > > executables are "just data" to a kernel; yet the vendors of proprietary
> > > Unices have always gone out of their way to make sure GPL software is not
> > > shipped together with their kernel, in order to take advantage of the
> > > GPL's "OS component" exception.
> 
> > That's exactly what the text says in fact, in qualifying the "just
> > data" statement.
> 
> I'm sorry, I'm not sure if your comments support or contradict my
> interpretation.  By "the text", do you mean the text of the GPL, or the
> text of the FAQ?  The GPL doesn't talk about data at all, and the only
> qualification in the FAQ is with reference to using GPL-incompatible
> bindings from a GPL script.
> 
> My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
> GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
> the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a GPL script together
> with a GPL-incompatible interpreter is acceptable.

You seem to be worrying about distributing GPL'd applications under
section 3 of the GPL.  But that is only for "object code or executable
form".  Debian is distributing it under section 2.  Furthermore, the
thing that Debian distributes doesn't have any parts of anything else
in it.  This is different from compiled C code, which has parts of the
compiler, libc, and other libraries.  So Debian doesn't have to worry
about compatibility.

Walter

Re: Is this a free license?

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > > Arguing from common sense here, consider the case of someone who knows
> > > C but doesn't know English. It would seem very unfair for them to be
> > > punished merely for downloading the tar ball, editing the code,
> > > compiling it and running it.
> > 
> > If that's true, then we might as well go home, the GPL is then
> > unenforceable.
> 
> What? How?

Because ftp.gnu.org doesn't require you to read the license either,
but does hold you to its restrictions.

> > But actually, the law says that if they have no information, then they
> > should assume that they have *no* right to download the tarball.
> 
> Would you apply the same argument to the file /index.html on a public
> web server?

Nope.  The details all matter.  The human-level "what is being done"
matters; the specific technical means are much less important.

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:05:09AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 
> > > Does the argument that a script is "just data" really hold water legally?
> > > I would think they are "just data" in the same sense that all binary
> > > executables are "just data" to a kernel; yet the vendors of proprietary
> > > Unices have always gone out of their way to make sure GPL software is not
> > > shipped together with their kernel, in order to take advantage of the
> > > GPL's "OS component" exception.
> 
> > That's exactly what the text says in fact, in qualifying the "just
> > data" statement.
> 
> I'm sorry, I'm not sure if your comments support or contradict my
> interpretation.  By "the text", do you mean the text of the GPL, or the
> text of the FAQ?  The GPL doesn't talk about data at all, and the only
> qualification in the FAQ is with reference to using GPL-incompatible
> bindings from a GPL script.

I mean the text of the FAQ.

> My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
> GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
> the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a GPL script together
> with a GPL-incompatible interpreter is acceptable.  

Except that the authors of the GPL have said that this is the correct
intpretation *if* the interpreter is the ordinary kind of programming
language interpreter that we know of.  

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:35:57AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:

> > My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
> > GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
> > the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a GPL script together
> > with a GPL-incompatible interpreter is acceptable.

> You seem to be worrying about distributing GPL'd applications under
> section 3 of the GPL.  But that is only for "object code or executable
> form".  Debian is distributing it under section 2.  Furthermore, the
> thing that Debian distributes doesn't have any parts of anything else
> in it.  This is different from compiled C code, which has parts of the
> compiler, libc, and other libraries.  So Debian doesn't have to worry
> about compatibility.

So you believe that we only need to comply with section 2 of the GPL in
order to distribute these scripts, even though the script is an
"executable form" per se?  If this is sufficient, that's fine with me;
I just don't see how it's invalid to say that a script, being both source
and executable, must comply with both sections 2 and 3, not just section
2.  Certainly it's *easier* to be able to ignore section 3, it just seems
arbitrary to me.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpP5iElRL4dC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> You seem to be worrying about distributing GPL'd applications under
> section 3 of the GPL.  But that is only for "object code or executable
> form".  Debian is distributing it under section 2.  Furthermore, the
> thing that Debian distributes doesn't have any parts of anything else
> in it.  This is different from compiled C code, which has parts of the
> compiler, libc, and other libraries.  So Debian doesn't have to worry
> about compatibility.

Thank you Walter, this is exactly right in my opinion as well.

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
> > GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
> > the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a GPL script together
> > with a GPL-incompatible interpreter is acceptable.  

> Except that the authors of the GPL have said that this is the correct
> intpretation *if* the interpreter is the ordinary kind of programming
> language interpreter that we know of.

A problem might arise in this scenario:

 1. I define my own programming language, roughly a superset of C or
Perl or another language in which free software is commonly
written.
I begin selling a proprietary interpreter for my programming language.

 2. I port some existing GPLed software to my language (easy because
I designed it as a rough superset of the original language). I
licence my port under GPL, such as I'm obliged to.

 3. I extend the ported software to do Really Cool Things, but the
extensions use some features of my programming language that are
hard to map back to the original language.

 4. I ship source for the extended software in a bundle with my
proprietary interpreter.

The outcome would be rather undesirable from a free-software point of
view.

Now, if it's the same "I" who do all four steps, some argument could
probably be made that I am in fact infringing on the original
software's copyrigt, under the "it's the intended end result that
matters" doctrine. However, if the steps are done by different
parties, it will be difficult to point to an individual party who is
actually in violation.

(No, there isn't any conclusion here. I'm just pointing out that there
are interesting grey-zone effects surrounding proprietary programming
languages or execution environments).

-- 
Henning Makholm"De kan rejse hid og did i verden nok så flot
 Og er helt fortrolig med alverdens militær"

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Now, if it's the same "I" who do all four steps, some argument could
> probably be made that I am in fact infringing on the original
> software's copyrigt, under the "it's the intended end result that
> matters" doctrine. However, if the steps are done by different
> parties, it will be difficult to point to an individual party who is
> actually in violation.

Legally there isn't any problem here.  Doing things with several
people dividing up the steps is just as illegal as one person doing
them all.  A group of people acting in cahoots are just as liable as
an individual doing the whole thing.

What establishes "cahoots"?  Well, basically, anyone who did any of
the steps (*any* of them, whether that step would be illegal in
isolation or not) with the intention that it's part of the total
process.  This is similar to conspiracy law, where taking an "overt
act" to futher the conspiracy is illegal, even if that act isn't
illegal in isolation.

(For example, if I give you a knife as part of a mutual plan for you
to kill someone with it, then I'm guilty of the act even though giving
a knife to someone is, in itself, legal.)

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:49:45AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

> > My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
> > GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
> > the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a GPL script together
> > with a GPL-incompatible interpreter is acceptable.  

> Except that the authors of the GPL have said that this is the correct
> intpretation *if* the interpreter is the ordinary kind of programming
> language interpreter that we know of.  

And if a hostile copyright holder were to come after us (or a
redistributor, etc), how much protection would the opinion of the license
author give us in court?

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpMJ1i4nJWPe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is this a free license?

[Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS]

Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> > > > Arguing from common sense here, consider the case of someone who knows
> > > > C but doesn't know English. It would seem very unfair for them to be
> > > > punished merely for downloading the tar ball, editing the code,
> > > > compiling it and running it.
> > > 
> > > If that's true, then we might as well go home, the GPL is then
> > > unenforceable.
> > 
> > What? How?
> 
> Because ftp.gnu.org doesn't require you to read the license either,
> but does hold you to its restrictions.

If you want to redistribute the program then you would have to read
the licence in order to know that you have permission to do so subject
to certain conditions. However, if you don't want to redistribute it,
you don't have to read the licence because there aren't any
restrictions imposed on you by the licence. It's a copyright licence,
not an invisible EULA.

Anyway, we must be totally off-topic now because I can't even remember
how we got here.

Edmund

Re: licence verification for the Bewan ADSL modem driver.

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 01:20:36PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 05:58:33PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Program code and documentation are
> > (C) Copyright 2002 BeWAN systems
> > All rights reserved.
> > 
> > This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> > (at your option) any later version.
> > 
> > In addition, as a special exception, BeWAN systems gives permission 
> > to link the code of this program with the modem SW library 
> > (modem_ant_PCI.o, modem_ant_USB.o), and distribute linked combinations 
> > including the two. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all 
> > respects for all of the code used other than the modem SW library.
> > 
> > See the file COPYING.GPL for details.
> > 
> 
> > The response i got from this list at the time was that it was ok to
> > licence the code under the GPL and to add an additional exception for
> > the proprietary part like is done here, in order to put the package into
> > debian/non-free.
> 
> > I distribute only the source in a debian conform
> > kernel-module-source package.
> 
> > So, is there something wrong with the wording of this licence or
> > something other i did miss ?
> 
> > BTW, i think there is, since this allow us to distribute the binary
> > package but not the not linked proprietary part, right ?
> 
> Do we have permission to redistribute modem_ant_PCI.o and
> modem_ant_USB.o?  That's the only thing I don't see in this license.  Is
> that permission granted elsewhere?

Yes, i also see this as a problem and already asked the Bewan people
about this. I guess they meant it implicitly in the permission to link
stuff.

Anyway, i will not get response from them before monday.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: Is this a free license?

[Richard Braakman]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:48:29AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > What? How?
> 
> Because ftp.gnu.org doesn't require you to read the license either,
> but does hold you to its restrictions.

Are you talking about the GPL here?  The one that says, "You are not
required to accept this License, since you have not signed it"?

Richard Braakman

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

[Walter Landry]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:35:57AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> 
> > > My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
> > > GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
> > > the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a GPL script together
> > > with a GPL-incompatible interpreter is acceptable.
> 
> > You seem to be worrying about distributing GPL'd applications under
> > section 3 of the GPL.  But that is only for "object code or executable
> > form".  Debian is distributing it under section 2.  Furthermore, the
> > thing that Debian distributes doesn't have any parts of anything else
> > in it.  This is different from compiled C code, which has parts of the
> > compiler, libc, and other libraries.  So Debian doesn't have to worry
> > about compatibility.
> 
> So you believe that we only need to comply with section 2 of the GPL in
> order to distribute these scripts, even though the script is an
> "executable form" per se?  If this is sufficient, that's fine with me;
> I just don't see how it's invalid to say that a script, being both source
> and executable, must comply with both sections 2 and 3, not just section
> 2.  Certainly it's *easier* to be able to ignore section 3, it just seems
> arbitrary to me.

Section 3 gives you rights in addition to section 2.  Section 3 lets
you distribute a particular kind of modification that is not allowed
in Section 2 (a modification that incorporates things that can not be
licensed under the GPL).  But Debian is not doing that, so there is no
need to resort to section 3.

Walter

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > However, if the steps are done by different parties, it will be
> > difficult to point to an individual party who is actually in
> > violation.

> What establishes "cahoots"?  Well, basically, anyone who did any of
> the steps (*any* of them, whether that step would be illegal in
> isolation or not) with the intention that it's part of the total
> process.  This is similar to conspiracy law, where taking an "overt
> act" to futher the conspiracy is illegal, even if that act isn't
> illegal in isolation.

I was alluding to a scenario where neither of the participants have
any "master plan" for an infringing outcome (and none of them control
each other). For example, the one who ports the program to the
proprietary language may do it out of honest desire to make some good
free software available in what he sees as an exciting new
environment.

-- 
Henning Makholm   "`Update' isn't a bad word; in the right setting it is
 useful. In the wrong setting, though, it is destructive..."

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

[starner]

> For example, the one who ports the program to the
>proprietary language may do it out of honest desire to make some good
>free software available in what he sees as an exciting new
>environment.

How does this differ from, say, Emacs on Windows? I'm sure that Emacs
has been extended to do some interesting Windows specific things, and
probably could be extended to do really interesting things (like
properly handle Unicode text, even of complex scripts like Tibetan)
if someone cared to. Should we prohibit that, just because we couldn't
port it back to Un*x?

Re: GPL scripts with a GPL-incompatible interpreter

[Richard Braakman]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 02:00:27PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Section 3 gives you rights in addition to section 2.  Section 3 lets
> you distribute a particular kind of modification that is not allowed
> in Section 2 (a modification that incorporates things that can not be
> licensed under the GPL).  But Debian is not doing that, so there is no
> need to resort to section 3.

This sounds wrong to me, because the requirement to include source code
is only in section 3.  And section 3 specifically says "distribute under
the terms of Sections 1 and 2", so it can't be more permissive than
those sections.  In fact, it imposes an extra requirement.

If we go by your interpretation, then any self-contained GPL executable
(for example, a flash image for an embedded linux system) can be
distributed without source code.

I read section 3 as being an additional restriction on modifications
that are also "object code or executable form".  The open question is
then whether an executable script is in "executable form".

Richard Braakman

Is this license permittable into debian 'main'

[Trent Lloyd]

The QPL - its OSI approved i beleive
is it suitable for debian main programs (i beleive so)

The Q Public License Version 1.0
Copyright (C) 1999 Trolltech AS, Norway.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute this license document.
The intent of this license is to establish freedom to share and change the 
software regulated by this license under the open source model.
This license applies to any software containing a notice placed by the 
copyright holder saying that it may be distributed under the terms of the Q 
Public License version 1.0. Such software is herein referred to as the 
Software. This license covers modification and distribution of the 
Software, use of third-party application programs based on the Software, 
and development of free software which uses the Software.

Granted Rights
1. You are granted the non-exclusive rights set forth in this license 
provided you agree to and comply with any and all conditions in this 
license. Whole or partial distribution of the Software, or software items 
that link with the Software, in any form signifies acceptance of this license.
2. You may copy and distribute the Software in unmodified form provided 
that the entire package, including - but not restricted to - copyright, 
trademark notices and disclaimers, as released by the initial developer of 
the Software, is distributed.
3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your 
modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as 
patches. The following restrictions apply to modifications:
a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the 
Software.
b. When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a 
non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial developer of the 
Software to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software 
provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to 
any other license(s) of the initial developer.
4. You may distribute machine-executable forms of the Software or 
machine-executable forms of modified versions of the Software, provided 
that you meet these restrictions:

a. You must include this license document in the distribution.
b. You must ensure that all recipients of the machine-executable forms are 
also able to receive the complete machine-readable source code to the 
distributed Software, including all modifications, without any charge 
beyond the costs of data transfer, and place prominent notices in the 
distribution explaining this.
c. You must ensure that all modifications included in the 
machine-executable forms are available under the terms of this license.
5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to 
compile, link and run application programs legally developed by you or by 
others.
6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other 
software items that link with the original or modified versions of the 
Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following 
requirements:
a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms of these 
items are also able to receive and use the complete machine-readable source 
code to the items without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer.
b. You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use and 
re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in both 
machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must be able to do 
so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be able to re-distribute 
to anyone they choose.
c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial 
developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must 
supply one.

Limitations of Liability
In no event shall the initial developers or copyright holders be liable for 
any damages whatsoever, including - but not restricted to - lost revenue or 
profits or other direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential 
damages, even if they have been advised of the possibility of such damages, 
except to the extent invariable law, if any, provides otherwise.

No Warranty
The Software and this license document are provided AS IS with NO WARRANTY 
OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF DESIGN, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS 
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Choice of Law
This license is governed by the Laws of Norway. Disputes shall be settled 
by Oslo City Court.


Trent Lloyd [Lathat]

   Jan 22-25 2003   Linux.Conf.AUhttp://linux.conf.au/
  The Australian Linux Technical Conference!