Re: Rejected Package - Licence question
Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Well, in that sense most other software licenses cover documentation, > e.g. the GPL - that was the main point of my statement. But I see no > license that was specifically designed and worded to apply to > "documentation but not programs", as many upstream authors seem to > search.=20 That's because it's damn hard to define which is which and if you're going to be vague about it, might as well cover all software. I suspect it would be discriminating against a field of endeavour if the documentation cannot be incorporated into a program. One of my favourite quotes again: "We can't depend for the long run on distinguishing one bitstream from another in order to figure out which rules apply." -- Eben Moglen, FSF's general counsel, in Free Software and the Death of Copyright, First Monday issue 4_8. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: name changing clauses, again
Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I tried to read the old discussions about the LPPL, [...] I guess you're referring to things like "analysis of latest LPPL revision" by Branden Robinson in June and September 2003, but you don't say. It's rather difficult to discuss things without knowing what they are. Even then, it seems like it wasn't totally consensual about the problem. > MJ Ray said, without anyone contradicting that: [...] I wouldn't read much into that. On my screen, no-one besides you replied at all. > So here the lesson seems to be that also filename change requirements > are acceptable as long as they do not impose any "relevant" > restrictions, with the question what's relevant depending on the > individual case. I strongly argue against including irrelevant junk in a licence, as it can turn out to be lawyerbombs. So, get clarification/removal if you can, but if the only problem in the licence is a practically-ineffective restriction whose workaround is noted in the copyright file, I'm not going to file a serious bug over it. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: name changing clauses, again
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> I tried to read the old discussions about the LPPL, [...] > > I guess you're referring to things like "analysis of latest LPPL revision" > by Branden Robinson in June and September 2003, but you don't say. It's > rather difficult to discuss things without knowing what they are. This one, and lots of other threads about the LPPL. > Even > then, it seems like it wasn't totally consensual about the problem. Indeed. >> MJ Ray said, without anyone contradicting that: [...] > > I wouldn't read much into that. On my screen, no-one besides you replied > at all. Which can mean that nobody considers this to be a problem. >> So here the lesson seems to be that also filename change requirements >> are acceptable as long as they do not impose any "relevant" >> restrictions, with the question what's relevant depending on the >> individual case. > > I strongly argue against including irrelevant junk in a licence, as it > can turn out to be lawyerbombs. Agreed, but I'm dealing with licensors who are either completely unavailable or unreachable, or not willing to understand the problem... > So, get clarification/removal if you can, but if the only problem in the > licence is a practically-ineffective restriction whose workaround is > noted in the copyright file, I'm not going to file a serious bug over it. Yes, I guess that's the attitude I should also take myself in the cases where there's no possibility to reach/convince upstream. Except dropping the file, of course, if the restriction is *not* ineffective. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
gbdfed license of one file
Hi, I'm packaging gbdfed and in reviewing the license of the source files I found the following notice: * - You can use this code for any purpose and without fee, except that * you may distribute only verbatim copies of it. Please send me any * bug fixes, ports or improvements for inclusion in future versions. * * - The code is supplied with no warranty of any kind. This seems non-free to me due to the "distribute only verbatim copies" part, but I wanted to check that before I contact the upstream author. The rest of the code uses the following license: * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a * copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), * to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation * the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, * and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the * Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: * * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in * all copies or substantial portions of the Software. * * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL * THE COMPUTING RESEARCH LAB OR NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY BE LIABLE FOR ANY * CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT * OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR * THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Which seems good to me. Thanks, Baruch p.s. Not subscribed, please cc me on all correspondence. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gbdfed license of one file
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Baruch Even wrote: > I'm packaging gbdfed and in reviewing the license of the source files I > found the following notice: > > * - You can use this code for any purpose and without fee, except that > * you may distribute only verbatim copies of it. Please send me any > * bug fixes, ports or improvements for inclusion in future versions. > * > * - The code is supplied with no warranty of any kind. > > This seems non-free to me due to the "distribute only verbatim > copies" part, but I wanted to check that before I contact the > upstream author. And the fact that it cannot be sold; both of these cause problems for DFSG compliance. > The rest of the code uses the following license: [...] Yeah, that's definetly DFSG free. Don Armstrong NB: It'd make it easier to Cc: you if you set MFT appropriately; set now. -- Grimble left his mother in the food store and went to the launderette and watched the clothes go round. It was a bit like colour television only with less plot. -- Clement Freud _Grimble_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the Sybase Open Watcom License ok?
Le 05-07-2006, Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Hmm, it doesn't appear to say even a word about _Sybase's_ patents at > all. It speaks about "Your" (ie, the user/distributor's) patents. > > So, let's say an organization/company which owns one of Debian's > mirrors, a mirror which carries non-free like most mirrors do, owns a > patent. Not a software patent -- a patent for a mousetrap or a drug. > Now, let's say that EvilCorp wants to do some patent trolling. They > buy out any of openwatcom's contributors -- it's a big patent with > hundreds or thousands of contributors, many of them corporate. In > fact, often you can't tell who owns CorpA without a longer research; > it can be owned by CorpB and then by CorpC and finally by EvilCorp. > Now, EvilCorp starts a litigation against the university/company > which provides our mirror. The defender for all practical reasons > just lost all his patents. ... > The license isn't good enough even for non-free, I would say. Adam, I do not understand why you say it can't go in non-free. Here is the clause you are referring to: >> 3. Your Grants. In consideration of, and as a condition to, the licenses granted to You under this License, You hereby grant to Sybase and all third parties a non-exclusive, royalty-free license, under Your Applicable Patent Rights and other intellectual property rights (other than patent) owned or controlled by You, to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, distribute and Deploy Your Modifications of the same scope and extent as Sybase's licenses under Sections 2.1 and 2.2. << It seems to me that the clause only grants Sybase rights to distributors' patents for the purpose of developing and distributing Open Watcom, not for any other purpose. Am I correct? Kind regards, Jason Spiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- When you open Windows, bugs get in! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
