ITP: powervr -- PowerVR XFree86 drivers and kernel modules
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: powervr Version : 2.01.21-7 Upstream Author : [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.powervr.com/Downloads/Drivers/Index.asp * License : Restricted Description : PowerVR XFree86 drivers and kernel modules The Imagination Technologies Linux Driver kit provides 2D and 3D acceleration for PowerVR KYRO family of graphics chips running in 16 and 32 bpp depths. The drivers are based on the standard DRI mechanism shipped with XFree86 > 4.0. The LICENSE.TXT file contains: 2.1.1 Rights. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the SOFTWARE as you received it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and keep intact all the notices that refer to this license and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this license along with the SOFTWARE. So I think it is legal to redistribute this software as Debian package. -- Piotr Roszatycki, Netia S.A..''`. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' `-
Re: ITP: powervr -- PowerVR XFree86 drivers and kernel modules
Scripsit Piotr Roszatycki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The LICENSE.TXT file contains: > 2.1.1 Rights. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the > SOFTWARE as you received it, in any medium, There does not seem to be any permission to distribute binaries. So this cannot even go into non-free. Further, the license explicitly forbids to "attempt (..) to obtain the source code. It seems that even downloading the tarball at the vendor's own site is forbidden by this license. (Next time, pleace use X-Debbugs-CC instead of an ordinary Cc). -- 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: ITP: powervr -- PowerVR XFree86 drivers and kernel modules
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:59:52PM +, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Piotr Roszatycki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > The LICENSE.TXT file contains: > > > 2.1.1 Rights. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the > > SOFTWARE as you received it, in any medium, > > There does not seem to be any permission to distribute binaries. So > this cannot even go into non-free. > > Further, the license explicitly forbids to "attempt (..) to obtain > the source code. It seems that even downloading the tarball at the > vendor's own site is forbidden by this license. The PowerVR drivers are similar to the Nvidia ones, there is a small open source wrapper and a big binary only part that does the real work. cu andreas
Re: ITP: powervr -- PowerVR XFree86 drivers and kernel modules
Henning Makholm wrote: 2.1.1 Rights. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the SOFTWARE as you received it, in any medium, There does not seem to be any permission to distribute binaries. So this cannot even go into non-free. The XFree86 drivers are provided in binary form. The kernel modules are provided in source form. Further, the license explicitly forbids to "attempt (..) to obtain the source code. It seems that even downloading the tarball at the vendor's own site is forbidden by this license. I'm sure it forbids to obtain the source code of binary drivers, not the kernel modules. I've sent the mail with ask for clarify to the vendor. If I don't get the answer, is it possible to provide just an installator? -- Piotr Roszatycki, Netia Telekom S.A..''`. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' `-
Re: DFSG Freeness of Patent Reciprocity Clauses
Nathanael Nerode wrote: Brian Sniffen wrote: Would the following be considered Free by anybody here? If You institute litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory copyright infringement, then any licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. Yep, I think it's Free, and here's why. If you allege that the Work contains copyright violations, you are implicitly alleging that the license for the Work does not grant a valid license. Not at all -- it grants a perfectly valid license to some of the work, but part of the work is mine. As a result, I'm the *only* person who can legally copy the work. For example, consider that I'm RBN, a large Utah-based software company (formerly Volcano, formerly RBN). If I point out that the Linux kernel contains some of my copyrighted code, then all the licenses on others' code (BSD, GPL, etc) certainly permit me to copy that code (providing I comply with their other restrictions, of course -- so I can copy the code in a Free way). Others cannot do so without a license grant from me, so I sue to stop them. Accordingly, you shouldn't be using the Work under that license *anyway* (you believe that the license is invalid!). Explicitly revoking the licenses revokes only those rights you have claimed that you don't have. No, it punishes me for attempting to enforce my legal rights. I never forfeited my claim to those rights, certainly not by suing to enforce them! Explicitly revoking the licenses imposes a non-Free restriction on what I can do. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: ITP: powervr -- PowerVR XFree86 drivers and kernel modules
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: powervr Version : 2.01.21-7 Upstream Author : [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.powervr.com/Downloads/Drivers/Index.asp * License : Restricted Description : PowerVR XFree86 drivers and kernel modules The Imagination Technologies Linux Driver kit provides 2D and 3D acceleration for PowerVR KYRO family of graphics chips running in 16 and 32 bpp depths. The drivers are based on the standard DRI mechanism shipped with XFree86 > 4.0. The LICENSE.TXT file contains: 2.1.1 Rights. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the SOFTWARE as you received it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and keep intact all the notices that refer to this license and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this license along with the SOFTWARE. So I think it is legal to redistribute this software as Debian package. In non-free, of course, since it's not freely modifiable.
Re: DFSG Freeness of Patent Reciprocity Clauses
Brian Sniffen wrote: Would the following be considered Free by anybody here? If You institute litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory copyright infringement, then any licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. Yep, I think it's Free, and here's why. If you allege that the Work contains copyright violations, you are implicitly alleging that the license for the Work does not grant a valid license. Accordingly, you shouldn't be using the Work under that license *anyway* (you believe that the license is invalid!). Explicitly revoking the licenses revokes only those rights you have claimed that you don't have. Revoking other rights (such as rights to an earlier version which you didn't claim had copyright infringements) would certainly not be Free.
Re: Bug#226232: ITP: glucas -- Mersenne prime testing program
Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > > Package name: glucas > Version : 2.90 > Upstream Author : Guillermo Ballester Valor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > URL : http://glucas.sourceforge.net/ > License : GPL v2 > Description : Mersenne prime testing program > > Glucas tests Mersenne numbers (2^P-1) for primality using the > Lucas-Lehmer method. It can be used to participate in the Great > Internet Mersenne Prime Search (http://www.mersenne.org) What exactly is glucas relation to GIMPS, especially the non-free terms decribed in http://www.mersenne.org/prize.htm ? -- Jens Peter Secher _DD6A 05B0 174E BFB2 D4D9 B52E 0EE5 978A FE63 E8A1 jpsecher get2net dk_
Re: DFSG Freeness of Patent Reciprocity Clauses
Brian T. Sniffen wrote: Nathanael Nerode wrote: Brian Sniffen wrote: Would the following be considered Free by anybody here? If You institute litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory copyright infringement, then any licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. Yep, I think it's Free, and here's why. If you allege that the Work contains copyright violations, you are implicitly alleging that the license for the Work does not grant a valid license. Not at all -- it grants a perfectly valid license to some of the work, but part of the work is mine. As a result, I'm the *only* person who can legally copy the work. For example, consider that I'm RBN, a large Utah-based software company (formerly Volcano, formerly RBN). If I point out that the Linux kernel contains some of my copyrighted code, then all the licenses on others' code (BSD, GPL, etc) certainly permit me to copy that code (providing I comply with their other restrictions, of course -- so I can copy the code in a Free way). Yes. But I think that the restriction doesn't actually stop that! Case 1. (The likely case.) The other people's code reasonably qualifies as *separate works*, and are actually covered by individual licenses. In this case, the revocation of the license to use the combined work (containing your code) does not limit your ability to use the separate works in any way. Case 2. The other people's code is totally inseparable from your code and does not qualify as a separate work. In this case, the license to the other people's code gives nothing to anyone but you! This is almost certainly a total subversion of the intention of the other people; if you are allowed to continue distributing their code (when you have prohibited anyone else from doing so), you have effectively taken code intended to be Free and made it proprietary to you; you've abused the law to steal other people's work. Accordingly, I think this sort of restriction is really no more restrictive than the GPL's requirement that you must be able to satisfy *both* the GPL *and* any other legal requirements, or you can't distribute at all. If you can convince me that I'm wrong about what the restriction would prohibit, then I'll agree with you. :-) Others cannot do so without a license grant from me, so I sue to stop them. Accordingly, you shouldn't be using the Work under that license *anyway* (you believe that the license is invalid!). Explicitly revoking the licenses revokes only those rights you have claimed that you don't have. No, it punishes me for attempting to enforce my legal rights. I never forfeited my claim to those rights, certainly not by suing to enforce them! Read my argument again; you seem to have missed the point. Explicitly revoking the licenses imposes a non-Free restriction on what I can do. The license revocation only applies to the license on a Work containing your copyrighted code. (And it *must* be that narrow in order to be Free, in my opinion. If you convince me that the clause as you framed it is *not* that narrow, you will have convinced me.) You may take works not containing your copyrighted code (perhaps a very simple process), and use them under their licenses. This may in fact allow you to recreate something approximating the combined Work. Or it may not. How about this clause: "If you contend in a court of law that this License does not grant anyone a valid license to copy and distribute this Work, then this License shall not grant *you* a license to copy and distribute this Work." Would you say that that was a non-Free restriction? I believe that the narrow reciprocity clauses are a subset of that. (If they *aren't*, convince me that they aren't, and I'll agree with you.)
Re: [vorlon@netexpress.net: Re: Bug#181969: [mdadams@ece.uvic.ca: Re: JasPer licensing wrt Debian Linux]]
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:03:47PM -0800, Michael Adams wrote: > Dear Branden: > > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > F. This software is for use only in hardware or software products > > > that are compliant with ISO/IEC 15444-1 (i.e., JPEG-2000 Part 1). No > > > license or right to this Software is granted for products that do not > > > comply with ISO/IEC 15444-1. The JPEG-2000 Part 1 standard can be > > > purchased from the ISO. > > If you are going to quote from the JasPer software license, please > quote from the current version of the license (and not an obsolete > version). In the last year, the license has been revised so that the > above clause only applies to the JPEG-2000 codec in JasPer. In > particular, the license now reads: > > F. The JPEG-2000 codec implementation included in the JasPer software > is for use only in hardware or software products that are compliant > with ISO/IEC 15444-1 (i.e., JPEG-2000 Part 1). No license or right to > this codec implementation is granted for products that do not comply > with ISO/IEC 15444-1. Thanks for the clarification. > This is one of the reasons why I object when people claim that JasPer > is not free software. Only the JPEG-2000 codec module has a usage > restriction, not the JasPer library proper. I could have released the > JasPer codec modules separately from the JasPer library, but I simply > do not have the manpower to do so. (This would require more effort > for multiple software distributions.) The JasPer software may be > used FREELY (IN YOUR STRICT SENSE OF THE WORD "FREE") without the > JPEG-2000 support. We would, as you noted, have to omit the JPEG-2000 codec from the packaged version. > > I believe the above will both signal members of the Free Software and > > Open Source communities that they will need to look elsewhere for > > software satisfying their licensing requirements, and place the > > responsibility for the failure to license the reference implementation > > for general-purpose use where it belongs. > > Although I wish that Debian could also benefit from the use of JasPer, > I would like to note that many software projects (many of which are > open source) have not found the compliance clause to be problematic. Patent licensing as it intersects with Free Software is not terrain that has been as well explored as copyright licensing. > This is why I would like to understand better what makes Debian > different from other projects. It's worth noting that the Debian Free Software Guidelines were used as the basis of the "Open Source Definition", promulgated by the Open Source Initiative. One thing that makes Debian different from other major Linux distributions is that we are not a commercial entity. > Is this simply a religious debate (about what constitutes "free")? I suspect the answer to this question depends on what your definition of "religious" is. > Perhaps this is not the case, but sometimes, if I may be frank, it > feels this way. It may be that we have failed to articulate our principles with sufficient clarity. If even *having* principles other than "the freedom to not have to pay any money for it is all the freedom I need" is what you would term "religious", though, it is possible that you would consider the central principles of the Debian Project to be religious in nature. -- G. Branden Robinson|Sometimes, getting your patch in is Debian GNU/Linux |just a matter of waiting for [EMAIL PROTECTED] |somebody else to reimplement it. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Jonathan Corbet signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#226232: ITP: glucas -- Mersenne prime testing program
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:21:09AM +0100, Jens Peter Secher wrote: > What exactly is glucas relation to GIMPS, especially the non-free terms > decribed in http://www.mersenne.org/prize.htm ? Those terms apply "if you find such a prime with the software provided". glucas is third party software. It doesn't even have any native support for the PrimeNet server, but if you're trying to find a new prime it makes sense to manually reserve exponents on the server to avoid duplicating effort. By the way, the "provided software" is available in the prime-net package on i386. That's my understanding. I've forwarded the question to the Mersenne forum for confirmation.
Re: Bug#226232: ITP: glucas -- Mersenne prime testing program
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:53:21PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > That's my understanding. I've forwarded the question to the Mersenne > forum for confirmation. Even if I'm wrong, the legal issues would be between the user and PrimeNet/GIMPS. glucas itself is GPL software that has no affiliation with either group, although integration is a future goal.
