Re: Is SystemC license compatible with the GPL ?
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:31:27PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Andrew Suffield wrote: > > >> No. GCC has different parts under different licenses (although all are > >> GPL-compatible). Parts are GPL, parts are LGPL, parts are GPL with > >> special libgcc exception, etc. > > > > I don't believe there are any LGPL parts. > > libf2c/libU77 > portions of libiberty > portions of libjava > some test cases Hmm, what a mess. I wonder how that interacts with the other parts; I suspect some of it degrades to the GPL, which could actually be problematic. The debian/copyright file is wrong (again) too. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: copyrightable vs. copyrighted (was Re: databases not copyrightable in the USA)
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 07:33:47PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:36:14PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote:
>
>
> > The proper terms for what you describe here are "copyright does not
> > subsist in this work", where the verb is "subsist" (alternatively
> > "copyright protection does not subsist", but even lawyers don't
> > usually go that far).
> "This work is not covered by copyright"?
That could mean anything.
> >> It may, however, be
> >> copyrightable, i.e. if another entity had created it, this entity would
> >> have had the copyright w.r.t. the work.
> >
> > This one isn't a word either. I don't think there is a formal name for
> > this one, as it's not very interesting.
>
> Actually, I think it's extremely interesting.
>
> We need to refer to two different distinctions:
>
> 1. There is a valid copyright on the work. ("copyrighted")
> 2. The work is of a class or works for which copyright "protection" is
> potentially available. ("copyrightable")
>
> Nowadays, nearly everything in class 2 is also in class 1. However, it used
> to be that being in class 1 depended on many additional things beyond the
> nature of the work itself.
I don't see what's so interesting about the group of things in which
copyright would subsist if the world were different.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 07:02:08PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > Watch out before trying to get rid of it, though. The GPL has some parts > that would fail the DFSG without using DFSG#10 as an escape. For example, > the "date changes" restriction (2a) and "output a GPL blurb" (2c) would > probably both fail DFSG#3. I have in the past provided at least compelling, if not conclusive, arguments as to why these pass DFSG #3 while at the same time the GFDL does not; this is a partial summary. It's not particularly hard to do; DFSG #3 is very weakly phrased. The correct interpretation as I see it is in fact the one frequently proposed by people who are trying to excuse non-modification clauses - that only those restrictions that actually pose a problem matter. (Their argument fails because they proceed to ignore all the reasons why their clause poses a problem, not because the principle is unsound). Theoretically there could exist a work which could never be usefully modified in any way, and it could still be DFSG-free; even if the license explicitly prohibited modification, this prohibition wouldn't be an issue because (a) it's just a restatement of a technical fact, and (b) it doesn't *matter*. However, this is just a thought experiment; I do not believe such a work can exist. (Everybody please constrain your desire to debate this point to death). GPL 2(a) is easy to satisfy (given the conventional interpretation that published revision control logs are adequete, and do not have to be included in the file itself) and does not prevent you from modifying the work in any way you desire. GPL 2(c) has two escape clauses; the first is that you only need display an "appropriate" notice, which can mean almost anything but should not require you to do anything which poses a significant problem to you, and the second is that the clause doesn't apply if you modify the program such that it does not "read commands interactively when run". I don't think anybody can come up with a convincing explanation of a scenario where either of these clauses would pose a real problem. I also think they're right up against the line of what is acceptable, and that this is intentional. It is very hard to write clauses like this which are not problematic. Moglen seems to have pulled it off. If they were even slightly more restrictive - if 2(a) required the notices to be contained within the files, or if 2(c) specified the text which you must display - then they would be non-free. Here's a rule of thumb which is handy to keep focussed when thinking about this sort of thing: --- A clause which says you must credit the original author, is okay. A clause which says you must credit the original author using the following text, is not okay. --- That one neatly and clearly classifies the vast majority of the licenses we are confronted with (it's the counterpart to "say WHAT you want, not HOW you want it" - licenses should be specifications, not solutions). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: sendmail X license (fwd)
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 09:17:03PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Um, I'm not a lawyer and this is outside even my
> > layman's-understanding of the law, but I'm certain I've seen cases
> > proceed in the courts of location X under the laws of location Y,
> > because a violation of a contract happened in X -- or the parties or
> > tort are somehow in X, such that it has jurisdiction, but the contract
> > insists on the laws of Y.
> >
> > So this doesn't force it to happen in a particular place, it just
> > encourages the courts to virtualize their judges.
>
> Do you have a citation? I don't see how this could possibly work. I
> could see that a tort happens in place X that is decided in a court in
> place Y, but I don't see how you're going to get courts in one place
> to familiarize themselves with the laws of another place.
AIUI, if there is a question of law, then the presiding judge will
submit a query ("Is it a violation of Title 17 paragraph xxx to
publish a program which bypasses a technical measure designed to
prevent copying, when this action has substantial non-infringing uses
and is the only method by which these non-infringing uses can be
accomplished?" - I just made that up) to some suitable court in the
relevant jurisdiction. They will rule on the point of law, and the
presiding judge will continue based on their ruling. The query is
typically revised until both counsels agree on the wording, and takes
the form of a "yes/no" question.
Questions of fact are the same in every jurisdiction. Questions of
legal process are handled according to the jurisdiction in which the
case is heard, and are not affected by choice-of-law
provisions. Sentencing is the judge's personal decision within the
boundaries laid down by the relevant law, as always; they are not
obliged to emulate a judge from the named jurisdiction.
It is the responsibility of counsel to familiarise themselves with the
relevant laws and ensure that relevant queries are raised. This is an
instance of the "hire a good lawyer" principle.
All of this is, of course, subject to the laws of the jurisdiction in
which the case is heard. They may prohibit or place constraints on
choice-of-law or choice-of-venue provisions, and the details will
probably vary quite a bit in some places.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Licening issues ibwebadmin
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 10:09:52AM +0200, Remco Seesink wrote: > Copyright: > > This JSRS stuff was written by me. I find it useful. Others find it useful. > You are welcome to use it, modify it to suit your needs, distribute it as you > see fit. I'm happy if you use it for personal stuff or for commercial gain. > > The only thing you can't do is to restrict anyone else from using it however > they see fit. You may not copyright it yourself or change the rules I have ^ > set on how it can be used. With this exception of the one part I marked, this license appears DFSG-free and GPL-compatible. With that part, it is neither. It appears to deny me the right to assert copyright in any derived works I may create. I think this is a regular bug in the wording of the license, caused by letting a non-lawyer write a license, and should be easily corrected. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 11:05:13PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:18:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > GPL 2(a) is easy to satisfy (given the conventional interpretation > > that published revision control logs are adequete, and do not have to > > be included in the file itself) and does not prevent you from > > modifying the work in any way you desire. > > a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices >stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. > > I don't think revision control logs can possibly satify it; it specifically > says that the modified files must carry it, not external logs. No it doesn't. And the GPL FAQ says it doesn't, too. > Besides, a free license shouldn't mandate revision control, any more than > they should mandate proper indentation or regression testing. It doesn't. There are plenty of other ways to satisfy this clause. > > GPL 2(c) has two escape clauses; the first is that you only need > > display an "appropriate" notice, which can mean almost anything but > > should not require you to do anything which poses a significant > > problem to you, and the second is that the clause doesn't apply if you > > modify the program such that it does not "read commands interactively > > when run". > > The word "appropriate" is only modifying "copyright notice"; there are > several other requirements: > > "an announcement including an [1]appropriate copyright notice and [2]a notice > that there is no warranty ... and [3]that users may redistribute the program > under these conditions, and [4]telling the user how to view a copy of this > License." > > I can't release a derived work of gdb that doesn't spam the user on start by > default (and my personal definition of spamming the user is any unnecessary > output at all). I like quiet programs, and programs with defaults that > resemble my preferences. "Copyright FSF, Inc; available under the GPL with no warranty, 'show license' for details", only when stdout is a tty, and a configuration option that will eliminate it completely. Is that really so bad? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Warranty disclaimers and yelling
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 11:02:17PM -0400, Adam Kessel wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 06:52:10PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > > Is there any reason that warranty disclaimers ALWAYS LOOK LIKE THIS in > > copyright licenses? I can't find any legal precedent for requiring them > > to be like this, but the only one I remember seeing in a proper case is > > Peter Norvig's license[0] where clauses 1 and 2 take the place of the > > boilerplate disclaimer. > I'm not aware of any particular case that hinged on mixed case versus > all caps, but it does seem to be the standard way to make the > disclaimer. I believe that there was one completely stupid precedent set along these lines somewhere, which is responsible for the knee-jerk capitalisation that lawyers practise nowadays. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 07:29:10PM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote: > >"Copyright FSF, Inc; available under the GPL with no warranty, 'show > >license' for details", only when stdout is a tty, and a configuration > >option that will eliminate it completely. Is that really so bad? > > > > "Alexander Zarochentcev (zam) wrote the high low priority locking code, > online resizer for V3 and V4, online repacker for V4, block allocation > code, and major parts of the flush code, and maintains the transaction > manager code. We give him the stuff that we know will be hard to debug, > or needs to be very cleanly structured. > > BigStorage (www.bigstorage.com) contributes to our general fund every > month, and has done so for quite a long time." - Is this really so bad? Not when I can replace it with "See /usr/share/doc/$package/CREDITS". Reiser is firmly on the other side *because* this is prohibited. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: IBM documentation license
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 07:21:56PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > I have problems interpreting the following copyright statement which > covers the documenting of the ICU library from IBM (which itself is > free). IMHO it is non-free, however it is full of juristical english and > may be acceptable for main if one can extract the relevant parts from > all the blah, blah. The most interessting part is on the bottom of the > text. > > Permission to Reprint IBM Copyrighted Publications Unless I'm misrememebring, this is IBM's stock non-free license for softcopy documentation (it's actually a pretty good license, as proprietary ones go). It was probably rubber-stamped on. If you ask the relevant people then they might (eventually) give you a free license. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 10:19:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:18:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > A clause which says you must credit the original author using the > > following text, is not okay. > > > > That one neatly and clearly classifies the vast majority of the > > licenses we are confronted with (it's the counterpart to "say WHAT you > > want, not HOW you want it" - licenses should be specifications, not > > solutions). > > By the way, this is also a bit of an overgeneralization--lots of > licenses specify what text must be used, eg. the original 4-clause > BSD license: > > "All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software > must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes > software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its > contributors." Yeah, well, I've always said this makes the 4-clause BSD license questionable. It's a rule of thumb anyway, not a bright-line test (the desert island test is a good example of a bright-line test). You're supposed to think when applying rules like this; they're just reference points. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 03:27:06AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I actually don't think the GPL Preamble is entirely legally irrelevant; it > > would presumably color the legal interpretation of the GPL if a question of > > interpretation came up. > > Hm, what about "a non-legal piece of text", then? The word you are seeking is "normative". > > I would be quite comfortable allowing patent "retaliation" restrictions, but > > only if they were very carefully tailored. Specifically, license rights > > must terminate only if the work is alleged to constitute patent > > infringement (no action based on unrelated causes), and they must terminate > > only for the person who alleged that it did (no harming third parties). > > The trouble with patents - in this context - is that we don't really > have any solid consensus to be codified. > > I'm fairly certain, however, that the *current* consensus is that a > free license cannot retailiate against patent attacks by revoking > *copyright* licenses. I'm not quite energetic enough tonight to try to > track down list referneces, but can anyone remember a case where this > was *not* the conclusion? Frankly, I think the whole notion of rolling patent and copyright licenses into a single document is monumentally stupid and fraught with trouble. If you need to write a patent license, write a *distinct* license. That aside, we've never actually special-cased copyright before in our phrasing or application of the DFSG, and I don't think we should do this for patents. I recommend the following: Phrase the proposed restriction in a way that is not specific to patents. Then construct a scenario where you apply it to copyright. Is it still an acceptable restriction? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG
; comment in the definition of user. Ah, who cares? It can't hurt to leave it in. And let's work the Chinese Dissident test into section 5, since we've got the Desert Island one in there already. A free license may not require that the author divulge his identity to anybody. I'm refraining from serious analysis of issues of wording at this stage, since anything I propose fixes for will doubtless get mangled again later. But on general principle, using latin letters for section headings on a list this long is probably a bad idea; we'll wind up extending it to about 28 items if you do that. How about roman numerals? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:06:15AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > As long as there is no > > restriction on how much additional software must be included, the > > requirement could be satisfied by either: > [...] > > * a one byte file containing "w", which would be a valid sh script to > > run the "w" command. > > Wow! TSSSITHOCS! > (The shortest shell-script in the history of computer science) > ;-) No, I believe that is the same as what will probably be the last "smallest quine" winner of the IOCCC: a zero-byte file. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG#
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 07:31:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:00:03AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > I'd like to append something like the following: > > > > The license may not place further constraints on the naming or > > labelling of the derivative work. This includes specifying the form of > > such notices, or the manner in which derivative works must be named. > > /usr/share/doc/apache/copyright > > 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache", >nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written >permission of the Apache Software Foundation. Bletch. Still, no "derived works must have NMU versions" clauses. > > > N. Acknowledgements in documentation > > > > > The license for a free program may require that end-user > > > documentation which accompanies the program contains a short > > > acknowledgement that credits the author. > > > > That's horrible. This could mean that we have to include the blasted > > things in the release notes. Survey of licenses and a tighter > > restriction before we write this one in, please. I'm not sufficiently > > familiar with such clauses to be able to pull one out of the air. > > /usr/share/doc/apache/copyright > > 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, >if any, must include the following acknowledgment: > "This product includes software developed by the >Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)." >Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, >if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. We're invoking the second part of this across the board. The first one alone would not be free; fortunately it is a disjunction, allowing us to ignore the first part. Hell, the first part would probably fail DFSG #9 (contamination). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG#
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 02:33:32PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:52:22AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > /usr/share/doc/apache/copyright
> > >
> > > 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
> > >if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
> > > "This product includes software developed by the
> > >Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)."
> > >Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself,
> > >if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
> >
> > We're invoking the second part of this across the board. The first one
> > alone would not be free; fortunately it is a disjunction, allowing us
> > to ignore the first part.
>
> The second part ("Alternately ...") makes it easier for Debian, but doesn't
> make it more free. Lots of software runs on hardware without the capability
> to display text (eg. embedded use), and their only choice is the first option.
I would interpret "wherever such third-party acknowledgements normally
appear" to mean /usr/share/doc/apache/copyright or similar - stuff the
thing in the binary package in a suitable file, and you're done.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#251983: libcwd: QPL license is non-free; package should not be in main
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 11:33:14PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.06.01.1951 +0200]: > > The choice of law is my choice and not of the person who doesn't > > follow the rules of the license. I am convinced that the choice > > of law has no influence on the *intend* of the license and as such > > cannot cause a license to fail the DFSG - which only describes > > what the intend of a license is (it is written in a general way). > > i am also not clear on that. I don't think the DFSG denies a choice > of legal venue. > > nevertheless, is it needed? imagine John Doe copies your software, > modifies it, and screws the licence. you can do one of two things: > prosecute john in his country, or prosecute john in your country. > the former's a pain and not possible due to financial issues. the > latter is what you'll do. > > now, whether the licence states that your hometown is the chosen > legal venue or not does not make a difference to john doe. if john's > country shields him or does not cooperate in handing him over to > face the charges, then there's nothing you can do. john already > violated your licence. he'll laugh at you if you insist on the legal > venue choice. If you want a license that favours the author(s) over the community then you want a proprietary license. Free ones don't do that. Choice-of-venue clauses are decidedly non-free. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#251983: libcwd: QPL license is non-free; package should not be in main
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:15:50AM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote: > If this is agreed upon by everyone - then it makes sense to talk > about the choice of venue versus choise of law thing. > Provided that libcwd WILL be included in Debian, I am willing to > change the wording of the last sentence into one that only states > a choice of law, not venue. But then it must be very clear that > that is enough for making the license pass DFSG as such a change > would be irrevocable. We cannot promise that we will not find other issues with the package or license in the future. We can say that choice of venue clauses are bad, while choice of law clauses are okay. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 05:24:31PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Also, assume for a moment there is a jurisdiction, FOO, where copyright > assignment can be done by non-signed documents. Fred, who lives in FOO, > sends me an email with some code and a statement that he assigned the > copyright to me. Is the copyright assigned? I'd guess no. As a general rule, international copyright assignment is a bitch. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Which license for a documentation?
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:49:38AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > >> Wordings like "please" don't seem to carry much legal value, so I > >> suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would > >> frown upon the request for credit. > > > > Nobody here would do so, just so you know. :-) > > Isn't that what the fuss about the "obnoxious advertising clause" of > the old BSD (and new XF86) licence is all about? No. That is almost, but not quite, entirely irrelevant to the issues with those licenses. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Which license for a documentation?
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 09:16:07PM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:49:38AM +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > >> >> Wordings like "please" don't seem to carry much legal value, so I > >> >> suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would > >> >> frown upon the request for credit. > >> > > >> > Nobody here would do so, just so you know. :-) > >> > >> Isn't that what the fuss about the "obnoxious advertising clause" of > >> the old BSD (and new XF86) licence is all about? > > > > No. That is almost, but not quite, entirely irrelevant to the issues > > with those licenses. > > I thought the advertising clause was just about the only restriction > in those licenses, the problem being that the GPL doesn't allow extra > restrictions. That's the "not quite" part. It's almost entirely irrelevant because "advertising clause" is just the name for this clause, and has got nothing to do with the reasons why it is a problem. I could call it the "stupid invariant section clause", which would be about as accurate, without changing anything significant about it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: XMMS in main?
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 02:22:46PM -0500, Jerry Haltom wrote: > I am curious what the current status of the XMMS patent situation means > for Debian. I can find the following conversation that suggests > XMMS should be moved to non-free... and after examination I agree. Why > then is XMMS still in main? > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/09/msg00123.html Threads on debian-user don't mean a damn thing. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Which license for a documentation?
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 04:42:37PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 08:23:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > I thought the advertising clause was just about the only restriction > > > in those licenses, the problem being that the GPL doesn't allow extra > > > restrictions. > > > > That's the "not quite" part. It's almost entirely irrelevant because > > "advertising clause" is just the name for this clause, and has got > > nothing to do with the reasons why it is a problem. I could call it > > the "stupid invariant section clause", which would be about as > > accurate, without changing anything significant about it. > > The FSF's "OAC" reasoning is combining the fact that 1: it requires credits > in advertising with 2: these clauses "stack" as different people use > different texts. The result is that the license ends up meaning "you must > include the following 70 verbatim texts in all of your advertising if you > mention the software". I believe this is why it was dubbed the "OAC"--not > merely that it required verbatim texts. > > A "stupid invariant section clause" only has #2, and not #1. The Apache > license (1.1) has one of those. Those are annoying, and to be discouraged, > but they aren't the OAC. Sure, that's why it's a disgusting and offensive clause. It's not why it's GPL-incompatible. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: oaklisp: contains 500kB binary in source
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:48:21PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > I assume that cyclic Build-Depends are acceptable in Debian. It would > > be difficult if they weren't. > > For essential packages, build-essential and kernels (not in the sense > one build-depends on a kernel, but one requires a working kernel before > running the build), it's understandable. For everything else, I consider > that quite wierd. There are at least half a dozen such loops in Debian already, outside build-essential. Inevitable consequence of packages built with a decent set of features. Bootstrapping involves a bit of cross-compiling and a bit of manual scamming. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: gens License Check - Non-free
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:58:57AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote: > Humberto Massa wrote: > >Well, it is if you yank off the non-GPL parts. If you meant the > >_pristine_, untouched source tarball, yes, it's not distributable. > > > >If gens is still usable/useful without the non-free parts, you can > >package it this way (/vide/ all the flam^W healthy discussions about > >the non-free parts in the kernel over this list). > > > > The mpg123 portions would probably be replacable with SMPEG with some > work, but Starscream is the main CPU emulation core, so, no, that won't > work. MAYBE I could figure out some way to split it off as a non-free > shared library and have gens depend on it... that might be worth looking > into. No amount of hoop-jumping will help you here. It's still clearly a derivative work of starscream. m68k is not a difficult chip to emulate, and there are plenty of other emulators for it out there. There's probably something which could replace it, resulting in a package which is both distributable and DFSG-free (given that mpg123 is easy to replace). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 12:06:25PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > I'm writing because I've just been made aware of this summary of the > Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 license: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00031.html > > Let me first note that Creative Commons uses a suite of licenses, with > a number of mix-and-match license elements (Attribution, ShareAlike, > NonCommercial, NoDerivatives). So any CC license that would require > Attribution would also fall under this analysis. Right, the CC licenses are generally known to be a collection of non-free licenses. > Conditions on modification are, of course, a matter of degree. No, actually, they are matters of form. Not degree. Unacceptable forms will always be unacceptable regardless of how large or small the relevant restriction is. > Let me note here that, although the Open Source Definition is not > identical to the DFSG, the OSI has approved a few licenses that have > equivalent or greater attribution requirements. Yes, OSI does approve of some licenses which we do not. This is not new. They require less freedom than Debian. > So, that's my feedback. I'd like to know what can be done to amend the > analysis and re-open this license (as well as Attribution 2.0, > ShareAlike 1.0, and Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 and 2.0) for > consideration. We've done these to death already, starting in 2003. They're non-free. That won't change. Future versions of the licenses will be considered the same as any license. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: gens License Check - Non-free
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:01:23AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote: > Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > >No amount of hoop-jumping will help you here. It's still clearly a > >derivative work of starscream. > > > > Not even something like what I mentioned in my other message? Seperating > the source packages wouldn't help either? No. It's still a derivative work. There can exist no transformations on the source which would change this that do not involve writing or replacing code - that's more or less definitive. > >m68k is not a difficult chip to emulate, and there are plenty of other > >emulators for it out there. There's probably something which could > >replace it, resulting in a package which is both distributable and > >DFSG-free (given that mpg123 is easy to replace). > > > > I'd be willing to tackle this if you were able to point one out, it > seems the only ones I could find weren't any more DSFG-free than Starscream. A quick search of the Packages file reveals basilisk2, an emulator for m68k macs. I know there are more m68k emulators out there, which haven't been packaged. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: gens License Check - Non-free
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 10:58:04AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote: > Humberto Massa wrote: > >>I can't even find the original source page for Starscream any more... > >> > >> > >Other (better!) option would be try the Starscream original author to > >release under a more liberal license (BSD/MIT/2clause or even the GPL). > >As to mpg123, what about mpg321 ?? > > > > I should also have mentioned that the e-mail address for Starscream > bounced when I tried it. So I really have no idea how to reach the guy > who wrote it in the first place. > > I had another idea, though. I've noticed a few packages in contrib don't > actually assemble the package until postinst... could I seperate gens > into "gens" (all the GPL code) and "gens-nonfree" (mpg123 and > Starscream), and have gens postinst call "ld" at install-time? The two > packages would contain the relevant .o files... and would techinically > be seperate packages. Intent is what counts. You can't try to find loopholes like this unless you have an expensive lawyer. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: gens License Check - Non-free
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:42:12AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote: > > That is commonly done for packages that allow distribution as source > > only, or do not allow distribution of binaries built from modified > > source. It does not get around the GPL's requirements. Quoting from > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html : > > > Consider GNU Objective C. NeXT initially wanted to make this front > > > end proprietary; they proposed to release it as .o files, and let > > > users link them with the rest of GCC, thinking this might be a way > > > around the GPL's requirements. But our lawyer said that this would > > > not evade the requirements, that it was not allowed. And so they made > > > the Objective C front end free software. > > On the other hand, their lawyer is an interested party. It's like trusting a > MPAA lawyer to interpret the DMCA for you. > > The FSF's position here is well-known, but has some odd implications. For > instance, if you write code that requires Windows libraries, it is a > derivative > work of Windows, and thus Microsoft can at any time prohibit you from > distributing it. Bad example. There are two implementations of most of the significant win32 libraries - windows and wine. Anything which works on both is a derivative of neither. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 02:35:55PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > AS> We've done these to death already, starting in 2003. They're > AS> non-free. That won't change. > > Ah. Well, could you respond to my points as to why I think they _are_ > free? I disagree with the terms of the summary. You acknowledged at least two reasons why it was non-free. I didn't write the summary. The discussions which resulted in the summary are the significant part, and I dimly recall they had valid points, but did not follow them closely. Beyond that I'm not personally inclined to analyse a license which is clearly non-free for other reasons; it's time-consuming. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: gens License Check - Non-free
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 10:03:38PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > So before Wine was created, anything which uses a Windows library was a > > > derivative of Windows? > > > > Yes. > > There are so many theories on this subject that I am perpetually > confused, but I don't think that is what is usually claimed in the > case of GPL libraries. > > I think the usual claim is that the program that uses the library plus > the library is a derivative of the library (which is obviously true) > and also a single work even when the parts are distributed separately > (which is at least plausible). > > In the case of a typical Windows library that's not a problem because: > > 1. Only Microsoft and its agents are distributing the library. > > 2. The library is not available from public servers. > > 3. There is explicit or implicit permission to link the library with > arbitrary programs. That said, I have no problem conceiving of the notion that MS might change the license to prohibit specific programs from linking to a given library. Probably as part of a security update. So the theory holds, but it *could* be a problem. Fortunately it won't be our problem. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: license change for POSIX manpages
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 04:32:11PM -0700, Andre Lehovich wrote: > The latest version (1.67, 20 May 2004) now allows > modification, "so long as any conflicts with the standard > are clearly marked as such in the text". This seems to be reasonable. It's also right up against the line - a stronger requirement would be a problem. I'm not really comfortable with it, and would be happier if it said something like: "If modifications are made which conflict with the standard, then either these modifications must be clearly marked, or references to the standard must be removed, such that the resulting work does not misrepresent the standard." That means I can take the documentation, update it to reflect a later specification, and simply remove all references to POSIX, rather than haul a huge list of changes around. The acid test is that when IEEE dies, I should be able to use their documentation to construct a successor to POSIX. > I've attached the full text of the new license. The other > sentence that caught my eye is "This notice shall appear on > any product containing this material". Is putting it in > /usr/share/doc sufficient? Yes. I'm undecided on whether that requirement is DFSG-free. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Mozilla Public License is non-free: stipulates court venue ?
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 02:14:33AM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote: > > Oh, wouldn't life be easy if everyone would just use the GPL or BSD > license > > and all these variations would just disappear. > > Freedom comes at a price!!! "The price of freedom is eternal idiots"? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Mozilla Public License is non-free: stipulates court venue ?
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:31:44PM -0400, Lex Spoon wrote: > Just to toss some fuel on the fire, it seems like debian-legal should > give careful consideration to licenses like this that are written by a > team of lawyers from a big corporation. These licenses seem to > frequently include stipulations about how litigation may > happen--including choice of venue and who pays for it--and heck, maybe > it's just good legal hygiene to include these things. I don't know the > answers, but it would be a shame if Debian ends up recommending people > to use *poor* licenses in order for us to consider them to be "free". > This would be a good thing to ask an IP lawyer about if any debian-legal > people get a chance. Choice of law would fall into this category. I think that choice of venue would not - it's more a case of lawyers trying to grab everything they can, to improve the corporate bottom line. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: license change for POSIX manpages
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 02:41:08PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Josh Triplett: > > > Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Josh Triplett: > >>>One other issue: does "and the nroff source is included" mean that if I > >>>want to hand someone a printed copy of a manual page, I have to either > >>>print the nroff source or supply it on an attached disk? This seems > >>>onerous for physical distribution. > >> > >> This is what happens if you apply the GPL to documentation, and it > >> seems to be considered acceptable. > > > > The GPL has an option for just providing an offer to provide source on > > request. > > "to give any third party", this fails the Desert Island (or some > variant of it) test. Nobody on a desert island can be requested to do anything. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: license change for POSIX manpages
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:14:40PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 05:23:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > "to give any third party", this fails the Desert Island (or some > > > variant of it) test. > > > > Nobody on a desert island can be requested to do anything. > > Sure you can; send a message in a bottle (or via one-way satellite). Lots > of desert island failures are like that, eg. "if the original author requests > the source, you must send it". I think this is outside the scope of the desert island test. It primarily targets clauses of the form "You must send the original author a copy of any modifications you make". Arguments on the merits for weaker clauses like the one you describe, please. > This also fails the Chinese Dissident test: if I *have* to give you a written > offer that can be given to someone else, then it's forcing me to communicate > with whoever you decide to give it to. The chinese dissident test is about revealing identity, not communication. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > The start of /usr/share/request-tracker3/libexec/webmux.pl is: > > #!/usr/bin/perl > # BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK > # > # Copyright (c) 1996-2003 Jesse Vincent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > # > # (Except where explictly superceded by other copyright notices) > # > # This work is made available to you under the terms of Version 2 of > # the GNU General Public License. A copy of that license should have > # been provided with this software, but in any event can be snarfed > # from www.gnu.org. > # > # This work is distributed 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. > # > # Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or > # extensions to this work which alter its source code become the > # property of Best Practical Solutions, LLC when submitted for > # inclusion in the work. > # > # > # END LICENSE BLOCK > > Similar blocks are in the HTML source files for rt3. > > What is the impact of the third paragraph? "If you send us any patches and don't say otherwise, you're implicitly assigning copyright to us" This cannot reasonably be a part of a license. I think it was placed here in error. It's probably legally void. > Can Debian properly redistribute rt3 if rt3 alleges both distribution > under the GPL and GPL-incompatible restrictions? Does the fact that > the restrictions are non-enforceable (at least in the US) enter > consideration? Tentative "yes" to both, but I'd be looking to get upstream to remove non-license text from their license; there is a whole truckload of provisos here that you shouldn't really have to deal with. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft Summary: MPL is not DFSG free
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 09:49:36PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote: > 2. It requires distributors to retroactively notify recipients about > third-party > legal problems with the software (Dissident test). Lousy description. Both this, and the dissident test failure, are problems, but they aren't the same problem. The same clause happens to fail the dissident test because it requires disclosure of identity. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft Summary: MPL is not DFSG free
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:20:54PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > > > If the court is willing to take the licensor's word for > > > it, then couldn't the licensor sue me in Santa Clara even if I had > > > never had anything to do with the software? > > > > Yes, but you could then tell them and the court that they had to move the > > suit to where you lived. With this clause, you couldn't (unless the clause > > was ruled to be unenforcable). > > This is circular. A court has to decide from the facts of the case > whether the clause is "enforceable". Which court decides that? That > depends on whether the clause is "enforceable". So where do we start? Law school. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Creative Commons Attribution license element
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 02:15:37PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > One thing that bothers me, though, is how this becomes 'barely > free'. I realize that it may be *annoying* or *stupid*, but how is it > *non-free*? I understand how *excessive* conditions on modifications > may make something non-free, but requiring that a verbatim URL be > included with the Work doesn't seem excessive to me. Freedom is a binary test; a work is either free, or it is not. There is no "partially free" or "semi-free". So "barely free" is "free, but very close to the line; make this any stronger and it will be non-free". > Again, though, I wonder about the non-free aspects of this. Clumsy and > inaccurate, yes. Non-free...? Would it be non-free because it's not > possible for the licensee to comply because the license is vague? Yes; if the licensee cannot comply with the license, then they have no right to distribute or modify, and that's what we're really interested in. Analysing the license is merely a means to the end - it's what you can do with the work that counts. Licenses which are vague are particularly nasty, because you can go with the "obvious" interpretation, and then get sued by the copyright holder who turns out to have a different one. Certainly we've had some copyright holders applying strange interpretations to apparently free licenses before now. To provide reasonable assurance to our users that everything in main is free, we have to take the most pessimistic interpretation, and see if that is free. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:22:34PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote: > One can argue that the GPL linking clause (linking with this > library a derivative work makes) There is no point discussing this issue with you until you comprehend the GPL. Go and read it until you understand that there is no such clause. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:18:14PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html > > Unfortunately for Mr. Richter, Linux does not seem to contain any > copyright notices attributable to him or Yggdrasil before 2000. As I > cited elsewhere, this is at least FOUR YEARS after firmware was > included in the kernel, so he cannot fairly claim infringement. He > should have known that binary firmware existed in the kernel before. (This is wrong, see elsewhere in the thread for details) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:44:37AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 16/06/2004 17:56 : wrote Andrew Suffield :
>
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:22:34PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> >
> >> One can argue that the GPL linking clause (linking with this library
> >> a derivative work makes)
> >
> >
> > There is no point discussing this issue with you until you comprehend
> > the GPL. Go and read it until you understand that there is no such
> > clause.
> >
>
> I'm sorry, You are Wrong(TM). It's right there in the "postamble" ("how
> to use GPL"), the very last paragraph of [1]:
>
> QUOTE
>
> This General Public License does not permit incorporating your
> program into proprietary programs. If your program is a
> subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit
> linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is
> what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License
> instead of this License.
>
> QUOTED
That text is explicitly non-normative.
*plonk*
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: gens License Check - Non-free
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:16:46PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > > Being derivative is a property of a work, not a property of its > > > distribution. > > > > And it is that property of the combined work to which the FSF objects > > -- no matter how tricky the instructions are about who does the combination. > > It is to be expected that the FSF argues for as broad an intepretitation > of the GPL as they can without breaking out laughing... Why? I think you're thinking of a different FSF to the "Oh, you don't really need to edit *that*" one. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 08:54:03PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > Surely if > anyone should be concerned, it's one with a half-billion dollar market > capitalisation rather than one with tens of thousands in its bank account. No, quite the opposite. The former will not be seriously afflicted by copyright lawsuits, and will probably settle out of court. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > 1. It does not allow derived works to be distributed under the same > > terms as > > the original software (DFSG #3). > > If there are no active patents covering the software, I think clauses > 2.1(b) and 2.1(d) are no-ops. If there were active patents, the work > would not be free software unless there is a free patent licence > issued. I believe that we've done this part before and concluded that absent evidence to the contrary, there were no interesting patents. We've got a lot of licenses like this. This is why we review packages, not licenses. I can't remember the last time I saw a package which had interesting patents, and yet actually had a free license for those patents. It's extremely rare. Most of the time, patents are held by somebody else entirely and are not enforced, so we simply ignore them (on the basis that we can't know which if any apply, and they're probably bogus anyway). People who are going to release free software do not normally patent the algorithms they use. All these patent clauses scattered around in licenses all over the place are, by and large, useless noise. > > 3. It restricts court venue, permitting licensors to harass licensees > > and > > effectively revoke the license. (Tentacles of Evil test) > > However, the choice of venue does only apply when one party is in the > US and anyway says that the losing party is liable for the costs. I am > not sure this is clear-cut and it smacks of wording copied without > consideration from the NPL. In any case, it seems not much worse than > the usual "place of origin or place of hurt" customs for copyright > dispute locations, from how current US practice was described my > Nathanael Nerode and apparently confirmed by others. (Apologies for > ignoring the interesting discussions of German law, but the choice of > venue looks US-only.) > > I didn't find the reference given in the draft summary particularly > helpful in understanding why this makes something non-free, and > similar terms are in some licences the FSF regards as free copyright > licences. Does anyone have some more, please? Stock objection to choice of venue clauses is that they force people to travel at their own expense. In essence they attempt to bypass the legal system by making it prohibitively expensive for somebody to defend themselves. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:41:51AM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote: > MJ Ray said on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100,: > > > If there are no active patents covering the software, > > Patent owners' policies may change. Patents are patents, actively > enforced or not. If the license does not grant a patent license in > respect of the software released, people can very easily sneak in > patent time bombs into the codebase. Sucks to be American. Nothing we can do about it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summaries in general, was: Summary Update: MPL ...
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:44:42PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >We've got a lot of licenses like this. This is why we review packages, > >not licenses. > > I see. Were you absent from the discussion earlier this year about > whether these summaries would be useful? Now that we've seen them in > action a few times, I feel that they are doing more harm than good > because they always seem to include "this is a free licence" or "this > is a non-free licence". There exist some licenses which are more or less unambiguously free. Not many. There exist plenty which are unambiguously non-free. Lots of the licenses that appear in Debian are neither - whether they are free or not depends on a range of factors about how they are applied and interpreted, and what they are applied to. In general, it's easy to say "This license is non-free (because...)" and extremely hard to say "This license is free"; the former is "there exists at least one problem in all cases", while the latter is "there can exist no problems in any cases". When licenses appear, we usually try to at least broadly classify the scenarios in which they would be free. For example, "this license is broken wrt. patents; it is free for works with no applicable patents". I'm not too impressed with the summaries to date, FWIW. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:57:06PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-06-23 19:12:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 05:18:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > >>I didn't find the reference given in the draft summary particularly > >>helpful > >>in understanding why this makes something non-free, and similar > >>terms are > >>in some licences the FSF regards as free copyright licences. Does > >>anyone > >>have some more, please? > >Stock objection to choice of venue clauses is that they force people > >to travel at their own expense. In essence they attempt to bypass the > >legal system by making it prohibitively expensive for somebody to > >defend themselves. > > This doesn't seem to be a stock choice of venue clause, though. It > only applies when there is a US party and some have claimed that the > choice of venue clause would not necessarily prevent a US defendant > being heard in their local court, such as Nathanael Nerode in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00237.html > > For international cases, the usual venues accepted by the US seem to > be "place of origin" and "place of hurt". If the US legal system > regards the MPL as a licence, it seems they would wait for the verdict > from the defendant's location, as usual. Is that true? Yuck. Kinda want to ask a lawyer about that sort of stuff. It's always possible that the clause is (mal)formed such that it becomes a no-op; wouldn't be the first time we've seen that. > Finally, I realise I should know this, but how does choice of venue go > beyond DFSG? Discrimination against groups of people? It's one of those things which don't really fit into the DFSG, but which are still unambiguously bad. That's what the 'G' means, after all. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 04:32:01AM -0500, Ryan Rasmussen wrote: > Is the following compliant with Debian's Free Software Guidelines? No. > 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will > terminate: > (c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during > the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement > against Apple; provided that Apple did not first commence > an action for patent infringement against You in that instance. Termination of a copyright license for unrelated patent lawsuits is completely unacceptable. > 13.6 Dispute Resolution. Any litigation or other dispute resolution > between You and Apple relating to this License shall take place in the > Northern District of California, and You and Apple hereby consent to > the personal jurisdiction of, and venue in, the state and federal > courts within that District with respect to this License. The > application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the > International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. And this one is no good either. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 10:53:14PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 04:32:01 -0500 Ryan Rasmussen wrote:> > 13.7 Entire > Agreement; Governing Law. This License constitutes the > > entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject > > matter hereof. This License shall be governed by the laws of the > > United States and the State of California, except that body of > > California law concerning conflicts of law. > > Choice of law clause. This is regarded as fine, IIRC. Under the proviso that the law chosen is not in itself an issue. > > Where You are located in the province of Quebec, Canada, the following > > clause applies: The parties hereby confirm that they have requested > > that this License and all related documents be drafted in English. Les > > parties ont exige que le present contrat et tous les documents > > connexes soient rediges en anglais. > > This seems a discrimination betwwen people and thus to violate DFSG#5 > (No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups). Nah, this is just a reference to a particularly stupid tenet of their law. I once saw some film or other that satirised it rather well: A group of people were driving along a road in Canada, in a lorry with "FUCK CANADA!" spray-painted on the side. They were stopped by the police and told to add a French translation. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 10:19:56PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > On Sat, 2004-06-26 at 17:23, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > > Where You are located in the province of Quebec, Canada, the following > > > > clause applies: The parties hereby confirm that they have requested > > > > that this License and all related documents be drafted in English. Les > > > > parties ont exige que le present contrat et tous les documents > > > > connexes soient rediges en anglais. > > > > > > This seems a discrimination betwwen people and thus to violate DFSG#5 > > > (No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups). > > > > Nah, this is just a reference to a particularly stupid tenet of their law. > > It's not "particularly stupid" to expect that, if you sign a contract, > it should be in a language you understand. It's stupid that this clause has to be in the license in order to achieve that. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Visualboy Advance question.
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 09:12:03PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > >That second case is pretty much where we stand with a *lot* of game > >console > >emulators out there -- the only way to get data to use with them is to > >break > >the law. Wonderful. > > Is it illegal if I own a game cartridge, and dump it? That part > probably isn't; US copyright law, at least, give me permission to make > a backup copy. I'm not aware of any relevant precedents, but at least some of the big console companies have stated in the past that (a) this is okay, and (b) it doesn't have to be a dump of *your* cartridge either - you just have to own one. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Visualboy Advance question.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:12:52AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 09:12:03PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > > >>> That second case is pretty much where we stand with a *lot* of > >>> game console emulators out there -- the only way to get data to > >>> use with them is to break the law. Wonderful. > >> > >>Is it illegal if I own a game cartridge, and dump it? That part > >>probably isn't; US copyright law, at least, give me permission to make > >>a backup copy. > > > > I'm not aware of any relevant precedents, but at least some of the big > > console companies have stated in the past that (a) this is okay, and > > (b) it doesn't have to be a dump of *your* cartridge either - you just > > have to own one. > > Really? I would be interested to know which console companies, since > most of them try to pretend that emulation is always illegal. Sega at least; they have even participated in the development of emulators for various console platforms (notably including the megadrive). If you ask the subsidiary "Sega of America, Inc." you'll probably get a contradictory answer though. Nintendo are the only ones I'm aware of that try to pretend console emulators aren't legal (sheer sophistry though; they claim outright "this thing is illegal because it can be used for illegal purposes"). Sony have given a stream of conflicting messages about the playstation platforms. Their legal efforts focus on copyright (bios image) and patent issues. They are in a rather uncomfortable position, because it was the "Sony vs Universal Studios" case that said VHS recorders are legal - they don't really want to disrupt that. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: PROPOSED: the Dictator Test (was: Contractual requirements [was: request-tracker3: license shadiness])
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:05:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > The above did not get much discussion; I'd just like to AOL it, and > suggest that any license which attempts to prohibit that which would > otherwise be legal is non-free by definition. > > Yes, this will vary by jurisdiction, but that is already true for many > of the decisions we have to make (crypto-in-main, the expiration of the > LZW patent, etc.). > > We should come up with a name for this test. Maybe the "Autocrat Test" > or the "Dictator Test"? The copyright (or patent, or trademark) holder > does not get to make up his or her own laws? "Autocrat" and "dictator" are roughly synonymous and just refer to systems of government where all power stems from a single individual; the UK was an autocracy for much of its history without individual freedom being significantly impaired. I think the word you want is "totalism" (as in "totalitarian"). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: request-tracker3: licence problem
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:56:20AM -0400, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> so, the # BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK and # END LICENSE BLOCK lines are there
> _solely_ to allow an automated tagging tool to go through and tag
> things and not intended as an ammendment to the GPL.
>
> If we changed it to # {BEGIN|END} BPS-TAGGED BLOCK, would that satisfy
> the objection?
Along with an explicit statement that this isn't part of the license,
at least.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: xinetd license possibly violates DFSG #4
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 07:12:51AM -0500, Andreas Metzler wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:24:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > [...] > > > 1. The version number will be modified as follows: > > > a. The first 3 components of the version number > > > (i.e ..) will remain unchanged. > > > b. A new component will be appended to the version number to > > > indicate the modification level. The form of this component > > > is up to the author of the modifications. > > > > While DFSG4 does allow licenses that "require derived works to carry a > > different name or version number from the original software", this seems > > to go much further than that, since it requires keeping the original > > version number. > [...] > > I do not consider this to "go much further than that". The intention is > imho the one DFSG4 tries to carter for. The author wants: > a) derivatives being detectable as such. > b) derivatives have to keep out of xinetd's namespace. He wants to > forbid a derivative being numbered as xinetd 2.3.15, taking away the > official version number. What the license *says* is that a fork must retain the "2.3.15" version prefix for the rest of time. That's no good. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Copyright on 'non-creative' data?
On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 01:42:22PM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote: > However, on the > same site, they have several zip files that are basically rom databases > produced by running the program on directories full of ROMs, allowing you to > match ROM images by their checksums. I'd like to package those alongside > ucon64, but they lack true licenses. The databases constitute effort > (because the creators had to assemble an entire directory of ROMs), but in > my opinion, no creativity (because all that was involved in the creation was > running ucon64 over said directories). Are they still covered by copyright > law in that case? No. There is no relationship between copyright and effort. Copyright does not subsist in a list of facts. They may be covered by database property laws in some jurisdictions. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Copyright on 'non-creative' data?
On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 10:26:00PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: > O Domingo, 4 de Xullo de 2004 ás 20:54:48 +0100, Andrew Suffield escribÃa: > > > They may be covered by database property laws in some jurisdictions. > > ... which are not "Copyright" or "Intellectual Property" laws, so Debian > would treat them in the same way it treats, for example, patents or > trademarks. Or copyright. We're not interested in laws really, we're interested in what you are allowed to do with the work. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Creative Commons license draft summary
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 03:15:25PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or > publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological > measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner > inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. > > I know that the anti-DRM clause in the GFDL was a cause of problems. I'm > worried that this loosely-phrased clause may be one, too. Yes, this is nasty for most of the same reasons as the GFDL clause. It says that I may not send you the file via Apple's DRM-controlled iTunes service, even though I also offer it to you directly (on my vastly slower server). Or any other example where you have the option of providing it on both restricted and unrestricted media, and for whatever reason, the restricted media is usually preferred. The clause is basically backwards. It should say that you must provide it *without* "any technological measures (...)" (but you may also provide it with them), which is roughly what the GPL says. That's disregarding the vagueness. As usual the GPL said it better. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GUADEC report
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:21:39PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >What do you mean by "solid legal argument"? Do we need to find a > >lawyer to check my reasoning? > > Lawyers have told people that releasing images of their trademarks under > a free license would potentially harm their trademarks. As a > consequence, they potentially release them under a non-free license. Not much we can do about that, if true. Sounds like the old "free software destroys intellectual property" noise. I don't really think that trademarks fit with the spirit of free software (despite it being possible to use them), and I'd raise serious questions about why they're trying to use them at all. Raising artificial barriers to forking is a *bad* thing. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Creative Commons license draft summary
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 05:18:44PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > Section 4a) allows the author to forbid reference to the user. Section > 4b) requires authorship credit. > > If the author uses the revocation clause, it's not explicitly stated > that the licensee is absolved of the requirements in 4b). In other > words: > > ~Attribution -> ~Distribution > RevocationRequest -> ~Attribution > Thus, > RevocationRequest -> ~Distribution > > There are some hedges in 4b) -- the author's name only has to be give > "if supplied". But it's not explicit, and I think having a licensor able > to effectively revoke the license at will would make it non-free. Revokable licenses, for any reason other than non-compliance, are indeed non-free. It does sound rather fucked up, and might be revokable. Lawyer-bait though. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GUADEC report
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 02:47:43PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > I don't really think that trademarks fit with the spirit of free > > software (despite it being possible to use them), and I'd raise > > serious questions about why they're trying to use them at all. Raising > > artificial barriers to forking is a *bad* thing. > > I think there are reasonable ways to use trademarks with Free Software. > The appropriate usage of trademarks is to uniquely identify the > software, not to raise a barrier to forking. Have you seen what the mozilla project are trying to do with their trademarks/branding? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Adding back compressed GIF code to cernlib after July 7 -- any objections?
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 09:54:29AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Kevin B. McCarty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040706 15:55]: > > My understanding is that the last known patent on LZW compression held > > by Unisys, in Canada, expires tomorrow, July 7th 2004. I plan to ask my > > sponsor, Bas Zoetekouw, to upload a version of cernlib with compressed > > GIF creation support added back in soon afterwards. (This may be > > delayed several days from the expiry date due to some real-life > > obligations I have.) Any objections? > > I agree with that. I myself have some other gif-producing code I want > to upload. This issue has been discussed in February, and the outcome > was to me that it is ok to upload gif-producing code, even as there is > a patent hold by IBM. This IBM patent (4,814,746) is on LZMW, not LZW. Entirely different algorithm, related only by the fact that they are both LZ78 derivatives, and that two of the authors had surnames beginning with the same letter. I assume that it really is LZW that is used in gif, and that unisys haven't been stringing us along for the past few years. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: License of Debian-specific parts in packages, generally and in particular
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 09:55:47PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote: > 1. Shouldn't we add a note to the Policy (or the Developer's Reference) >that there should be a license statement for the Debian-specific >parts in debian/copyright? I think we should, and it should be a >"must" directive post-sarge. More to the point it should have been done, for any packages that aren't trivial. > 2. Should we encourage maintainers and contributors to assign the >copyright to SPI, as the x people did? No, SPI is useless. > 3. Is there any advice on whether to put the debian-specific part under >the same license as the upstream work, or whether this does not >matter? That would depend on the license. MIT if unsure. > 4. How should we proceed with old contributions? Especially if >maintainers have frequently changed, or complex patches from the BTS >have been applied, it might be hard to find out all the copyright >holders. We can't even find all the current maintainers. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 08:36:12PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired > > the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the > > software, and the right to sue the author if it didn't work, so this > > test as written would prohibit warranty disclaimers. > > A typical warranty disclaimer doesn't prohibit you from suing the > author; it just makes it less likely that you would win if you did. > > As I see it, the warranty disclaimer isn't a condition of the licence. > It's a notice. While I believe this is true in the US, for somewhat obscure and frankly rather silly reasons (precedent, not legislation), in the UK they only work if they are part of the license. (Notably this means that if there is no license, the warranty disclaimer is invalid, and statutory warranty applies). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:26:00AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Now, in the UK, can you agree to the license for purposes of the licensed > activities *without* losing your right to sue regarding any statutory > warranties which would cover fair dealing, library privilege, or other > always-permitted uses of the copyrighted work? If so, there's no problem > in the UK either. I think this ventures into unexplored legal territory. I doubt it's actually a problem, though. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:15:31PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > The "dissident test" does sound very silly the way it is described in > the FAQ. Perhaps the FAQ should give a realistic example as well as > the memorable but silly "dissident" example. What's silly or unrealistic about it? The totalitarian state in question is the People's Republic of China. The original name of this test is the "Chinese Dissident" test. Free software developers are almost dissidents by definition in China; advocates of "free speech" certainly are. The conventional approach to political dissidents in China is to have them quietly disappear. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:47:04PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Joey Hess wrote: > > > Cobblers. Any reasonable person can see I was only asked for the > > > argument in one direction and I didn't yet know the contrary arguments > > > well enough to summarise them. You should have seen that, as it was in > > > the message you replied to! > > > > I consider myself a reasonable person, and it was not obvious to me. > > More accurately, one tactic is to try to give the appearance of giving > some kind of summary of arguments for and against a position, and > understate the argument one disagrees to to the point that it looks > absurdly weak. For a number of reasons, it's quite easy to read your > original mail as an attempt to do that, which is why I asked if you were > really trying to do an impartial summary. > > If one is really trying to summarise both sides of something, one needs > to keep in mind that this tactic exists, and that one's readers will be > aware of it, and if one can only summarise one side of an argument in > such a weak way, then it's best to either get more information about it, > or think about whether one can really be impartial on the topic. > Often it's best to give up on the summary at that point. This applies only to published articles, not invitations to discussion. When inviting discussion, it is customary to sweep aside all the stuff that doesn't need discussing *again* by summarising it up front. Mailing lists are like a debate. Not like a newspaper. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:26:46PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:23:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > >> What's silly or unrealistic about it? The totalitarian state in > >> question is the People's Republic of China. The original name of this > >> test is the "Chinese Dissident" test. > > > >I find it gross that it was suddenly renamed, losing much of its meaning > >for false "political correctness". It'd be nice if the FAQ would correct > >this. > > Why is the state in question significant? There's no shortage of places > where writing subversive software may result in bad things happening. China is mildly notorious for having a rather, uhh, "broad" definition of "subversive". Basically, if you're in China, your only defence is anonymity. Also it's a huge, modern nation with strong political, economic, and military power, and it seems likely to stay that way. Certainly the most extreme example, and probably by a wide margin. It's not like one of the tinpot dictatorships. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:41:31PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>"The opinions of debian-legal" consist of the opinions of all those > >>developers and non-developers who participate on this list. This is not > >>a closed list. If the opinions of some developers diverge from the > >>opinions on debian-legal, then those developers should start > >>participating on debian-legal and expressing their opinions. > > > > Yes, in an ideal world that would be the case. In the world we live in, > > people have been intimidated away from participating in debian-legal > > because of the debating style and perceived extremism of certain > > participants. Refusal to acknowledge that is likely to end up leading to > > debian-legal having no influence whatsoever. > > That is unfortunate. As far as I know, the only "debating style" on > debian-legal is "be prepared to debate logically, and not just assert". > I certainly acknowledge that various members of debian-legal hold > extreme positions on various issues, but I tend to believe that the > collective consensus is more moderate, albeit biased by self-selection > towards those who care about legalistic issues. Actually it's just a trivial tautology: The people who participate on -legal are the ones who care about this stuff. The people who don't care about this stuff tend to believe that the sort of stuff discussed on -legal (be it freedom or simple legality) should not be allowed to influence the project, since they don't care about it. They tend to resort to histrionics, since anything else would be participation, which would be self-defeating. All I can think of to say to them is: sod off. (There's a third group who don't care enough to discuss these issues and are willing to submit to the consensus of the developers, excepting those who don't care about it, which is the definition of -legal) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Clarification of redistribution
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:45:02PM -0400, Mike Olson wrote: > I've got a follow-up question for the Debian readership on the list: > What documentation licenses do you know of that are DFSG-free? GPL, MIT, usual stack. > How do you guys think about marks, and preservation of trademark > rights in documentation? What rights, and how are you endangering them such that they need to be preserved? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Free Debian logos? [was: Re: GUADEC report]
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 03:34:08PM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
> >A Free logo would be usable unmodified as the
> >logo for another project or website. That would probably cause
> >confusion with Debian, but it is a legitimate use for a Free logo.
> >
> >- Josh Triplett
> Trademarks are fundamentally different from copyrights. Things which are
> too small for copyright protection (dictionary words ('windows', 'shell'
> for example), geometric symbols, etc.) are still trademarkable.
You cannot trademark a dictionary word. Microsoft *lost* that lawsuit.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Free Debian logos? [was: Re: GUADEC report]
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 10:45:10PM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
> Companies like Apple and General Electric would be disappointed to hear
> that. I think you meant that dictionary words can't be trademarked where
> those words are clearly descriptive of the goods and services in association
> with which they are associated.
"General Electric" is two words; MS has lost that game before now too
("IBM Works" does not infringe "Microsoft Works"). Apple's probably
lawyer-bait.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Free Debian logos?
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:40:04AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 10:45:10PM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
> >> Companies like Apple and General Electric would be disappointed to hear
> >> that. I think you meant that dictionary words can't be trademarked where
> >> those words are clearly descriptive of the goods and services in
> >> association
> >> with which they are associated.
> >
> > "General Electric" is two words; MS has lost that game before now too
> > ("IBM Works" does not infringe "Microsoft Works"). Apple's probably
> > lawyer-bait.
>
> Apple Corps in Britain disagrees. They worked out an agreement with
> Apple Computer that held until Apple Computer came out with iTunes[1].
> The latest news I see is that a British court ruled that the case
> should be heard in London rather than the US[2]. [2] also mentions
> suits filed by the record label in 1981 and 1991, both of which
> settled out-of-court.
To be fair, this appears to be a contract suit, not a trademark
one. It's never been settled in court before, and now they're simply
claiming that Apple Computer are in breach of the old agreement.
International trademarks are even more lawyer-bait; I expect Apple
Computer really don't want to let this one go to court over
trademarks, because even if they win, they probably still lose (their
claimed trademark is sunk).
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Free Debian logos? [was: Re: GUADEC report]
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:43:23PM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >
> >"General Electric" is two words; MS has lost that game before now too
> >("IBM Works" does not infringe "Microsoft Works"). Apple's probably
> >lawyer-bait.
> >
>
> How about Boots, Caterpillar, Dell, Ford, Game, Nestle, Shell, Sky,
> Next, etc.? Are all these trademarks lawyer-bait as well?
Most of those are, yes. "Nestle" has an acute accent in there
somewhere.
Trying to defend these trademarks in court could only lead to a long
and expensive legal battle, of uncertain outcome. He who has the most
expensive lawyer wins, normally.
That's part of why they all(?) use logos wherever possible. It's much
easier to defend a trademark on an original image than on a word.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL-compatible, copyleft documentation license
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:37:16AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> Your license doesn't give me permission to publicly perform the work, > >> or to broadcast it. > > > > True enough. Neither does the GNU GPL. Why is this not a problem for the > > GNU GPL? > > The GPL was designed to be applied to computer programs. A license > explicitly labeled as "documentation license" should address this > issue. I call bullshit. Who said it was designed to be applied to computer programs? It addresses anything that could be necessary for a work classified as "literary". Trying to claim that it's necessary to "address" other issues is the classic introduction to a non-free license. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL-compatible, copyleft documentation license
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:10:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Andrew Suffield: > > >> The GPL was designed to be applied to computer programs. A license > >> explicitly labeled as "documentation license" should address this > >> issue. > > > > I call bullshit. Who said it was designed to be applied to computer > > programs? > > The license itself mentions "program" several times, the FSF writes on > its web pages that the GPL was "originally designed for software" (the > FSF software, like almost anybody outside Debian, uses "software" in a > narrow sense that doesn't include documentation), and I'm sure you can > find statements from RMS or Eben Moglen that say similar things. All of which is belied by the fact that the GPL contains a very careful definition of "Program" which has obviously been crafted to apply to any literary work. > > It addresses anything that could be necessary for a work classified as > > "literary". > > I've already named certain usage rights which apply to literary works > and are not granted by the GPL (neither explicitly or implicitly). You have not. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:21:17AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > But in evaluating licenses, we have to assume that the Licensor is not > good, generous, or rational. If we can convince ourselves that the license > grants the licensees freedom _even_when_ the Licensor is possessed by > Captain Howdy and starts spewing green goo out of their eye sockets, then > we can be reasonably certain that works released under the license are > really Free. > > Unfortunately, taking this tack makes us look like mean and vituperative > a-holes. The word is "lawyers". They'd do exactly the same thing, for the same reasons, if this were a proper license being negotiated by two parties, rather than one party trying to stuff a vague and open-ended document down the collective throat of the world. > So, if Programmer Joe really wrote a program and made the documentation > available under the by 2.0, and I created a modified version and wrote in > the modified documentation: > > Programmer Joe's version of this algorithm ran in O(N^2) time, but > our > new version runs in O(NlogN) time. > > ...then, as the license is written now, Joe could request that I remove his > name from this sentence. > > Now, is this earthshatteringly bad? Not really. We could obviously work > around it, and program documentation that leaves out reference to the > original version and its authors would probably be more or less usable. > > But opinion here seems to lean to the side that letting Licensors have this > level of editorial control over modified versions of a document makes that > document non-free. Notably it fails the smoke test: this clause prohibits us from including the work in Debian, since we cannot realistically satisfy this requirement. That means it's got to be non-free. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Web application licenses
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 07:45:03PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Josh Triplett writes: > > > How about something vaguely like: > > > > """ > > If you make the software or a work based on the software available for > > direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software > > to that party, you must either: > > > > a) Distribute the complete corresponding machine-readable source code > > publically under this license, or > > b) Make the source code available to that party, under the all the same > > conditions you would need to meet in GPL section 3 if you were > > distributing a binary to that party. > > """ > > For the purposes of making it a purely copyright based license, it is > probably desirable to only have such a clause kick in for works based > on the software. Use (whether by the recipient or by third parties) > of software is not, as far as I know, a right reserved under copyright > law -- but preparing a derived work is. > > At least one previous discussion has mentioned "public performance" of > a work being controlled by copyright, and using this as a lever to > achieve the above. My reading of 17 USC 106(4) suggests that this is > not applicable to software. > (See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html) And indeed, given the classification of software as a literary work, I am not at all convinced that it is possible to write a license with a restriction that closes the "remote application hole". -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MySQL FOSS Exception
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:44:39PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:34:33PM +, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > Francesco P. Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/foss-exception.html > > > > > A few programs link currently the old non-GPL libmysqlclient10 in order > > > to retain compatibility with other free licenses which have known > > > problems and require exceptions (e.g. openssl). AFAIK the new > > > statement should allow all those program to link the current > > > libmysqlclient instead. See proftpd-mysql for an example of such kind > > > of programs. > > > > Could you readjust my glasses? You explicitely mention OpenSSL but I > > cannot see it on the webpage. Is 'BSD license "July 22 1999"' supposed > > to apply? > > > > Mmm, I'm quite miopic too, anyway both licenses in openssl are bsd-like > (with advertising clauses) and they are compatible with OpenSource Initiative > criteria, as pointed in http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php. > So they are acceptable for MySQL FOSS exception. What, even the SSLeay license? It's not a BSD license, and fuck knows what "compatible with OpenSource Initiative criteria" is supposed to mean. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MySQL FOSS Exception
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:10:53PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > > What, even the SSLeay license? It's not a BSD license, and fuck knows > > what "compatible with OpenSource Initiative criteria" is supposed to > > mean. > > > > MySQL exception says: "Due to the many variants of some of the above > licenses, we require that any version follow the Open Source Definition > by the Open Source Initiative (see opensource.org)" Yeah, fuck knows what that means. A vague definition in terms of another vague definition, *in a license*. > Anyway if MySQL folks would add both licenses in its exception > could be fine, I think. That would be the obvious approach. The SSLeay license isn't particularly BSD-like in intent, so it would be really stretching the bounds of plausibility to label it as one, and it's not like there's a shortage of space. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Free non-software stuff and what does it mean. [was Re: General Resolution: Force AMD64 into Sarge]
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 02:15:20AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:51:41AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: > > If upstream supplies source in the upstream, as per Andrews definition, > > then I think that is OK. But if they don't, then that should not > > constitute violation of DFSG. > > > > We *need* a definition of "program" in the DFSG. This is the only way to > > fix the ambiguity. > > I think this is a reasonable approach, in principle, as long as the word > "program" is removed from DFSG#1, #4, #6, #7, #8 and #9--so that it's > only used in #2. (s/program/work/ the rest, perhaps.) Special-casing ELF files is nuts. Why the fuck try to dodge providing source? What is this supposed to accomplish? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Web application licenses
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > It does seem like if the public performance right covers > making a video game available for public use (which probably came up in > a case against an arcade), it should also apply for making a web > application available for public use. This is unprecedented, and therefore lawyer-bait. Pretty much any stupid decision is possible, depending on who bribed their way into the courthouse at the time. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SRP
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:08:02PM +0200, MiguelGea wrote: > * 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: <...> > * In addition, the following conditions apply: > * > * 1. Any software that incorporates the SRP authentication technology > *is requested to include the following acknowlegment in > *advertising materials: > *"This product uses the 'Secure Remote Password' cryptographic > * authentication system developed by Tom Wu ([EMAIL PROTECTED])." > * > * 2. Any software that incorporates all or part of the SRP distribution > *itself must include the following acknowledgment in advertising > *materials: > *"This product includes software developed by Tom Wu and Eugene > * Jhong for the SRP Distribution (http://srp.stanford.edu/)." > * > * 3. Redistributions in source or binary form must retain an intact > copy > *of this copyright notice and list of conditions. Oh wow, a bastard child of the MIT and 4-clause BSD licenses. Somebody was on the really good crack when they did that. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mpeg2enc code in simage
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 05:00:10PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > As I read it, the patent claims disallow this from Debian. Is that > true? Yes. MPEG-2 video encoding has a particularly litigious and nasty group holding the various patents on it. They're about the same as the MPEG-[12] audio encoding ones. > Can it go into "non-free"? No. > If this is not allowable, is it > enough to build it without the mpeg2enc code enabled or do I need to > sanitize the *source* package too? We don't want to give those arseholes any excuse to make trouble. Rip it out. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Web application licenses
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:22:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > I just don't see how compelling source > distribution from a networked provider actually increases freedom -- > since I don't care about changing the code I have, I care about > changing the code *they* have. Here's the loophole: Take a GPLed application. Modify it. Do not release the source, or the binaries. Run the application on your own servers, and sell accounts to use it (via ssh, vnc, or whatever). All these sort of licenses are trying to block this, and variations on it. I've never actually seen one that worked without being grossly overbearing to the point of being non-free. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 11:44:32AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote: > I would really like someone to map one of the cited problems with the > RPSL to a stated requirement in the DFSG. Trying to treat the DFSG as a set of rules *will not work*. That's what the "G" means. It's not written in that style and nobody really knows how to do it; furthermore, that road leads to an endless arms race. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 04:26:39PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > RPSL 2.1a *might* be non-free. It prohibits some sorts of > modifications -- not only those necessary to prevent fraud and > preserve copyright notices, Not that such restrictions are okay, or even necessary. These things were illegal to start with. They do not become *more* illegal because the license says something about them. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL-compatible, copyleft documentation license
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:13:44AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > However, even though the GPL allows for a broad interpretation of > "Program", the GPL hasn't been designed to be applied to non-programs > which are often distributed in a form that is not machine-readable > (see Francesco's message). This is a non-issue. It's also silly. There is no infrastructure for distributing things that aren't machine-readable in Debian. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:12:44PM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote: > In broad strokes, what we're trying to accomplish with the patent clause > is this: we're giving a license to our patents (and our copyright) in > exchange for not being sued by the licensee over patent infringment. > Note that this isn't a license to the licensee's patents. This just > basically says that we can revoke our patent grants if the licensee > chooses to take legal action against us. That may be what you meant to say, but it's not what the license actually says. What it currently says is: If you initiate a lawsuit against anybody that stipulates this program infringes any patent, then you immediately lose all rights to modify and distribute the software (would be "use" as well, except that absent idiotic DMCA-like laws, that can't be restricted). Which is quite gratuitous. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL-compatible, copyleft documentation license
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:59:45PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > Andrew Suffield wrote: > > >>However, even though the GPL allows for a broad interpretation of > >>"Program", the GPL hasn't been designed to be applied to non-programs > >>which are often distributed in a form that is not machine-readable > >>(see Francesco's message). > > > >This is a non-issue. It's also silly. There is no infrastructure for > >distributing things that aren't machine-readable in Debian. > > Well, sometimes we do that T-shirt thing. We *sell* those :P -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:17:09AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library > > creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it > > contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the > > library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. > > Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables." > > I see. Thank you, that clarifies perfectly. > > I had thought from previous GPL discussions that "distribute the source > and let users link it" was not a reasonable way to sidestep license > compatibility issues, because the source was still a derived work. Does > this mean that one can distribute the source (or object files, even) of > a program that links to a GPLed library, and just let users link it? > That seems like a rather large loophole. Trying to duck the license in this manner would probably not amuse a court. The best thing to do is to ignore all the library fluff - does *this code* require or otherwise derive from *that code*? The answer is usually "yes" when linking to a library for which only one implementation of the API exists, and usually "no" when multiple such implementations exist. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:13:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > I hope that the FSF wouldn't want strengthen the idea that telling > people *how* to violate copyright should be illegal (eg. DeCSS, > "contributory infringement"). It's the act of writing the derivative software that was infringing. Not the same thing. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:42:56PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > This sort > of declaration of consensus despite a lack of clarity grounded in the DFSG is > exactly what's caused so much ire within the rest of the project towards this > list. No, firstly (a) that's just a vocal minority, and (b) it's just FUD. The form is "I don't like your conclusion, and I haven't thought about it, so I'm going to blame you". -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 03:43:03PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:24:29PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:13:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > I hope that the FSF wouldn't want strengthen the idea that telling > > > people *how* to violate copyright should be illegal (eg. DeCSS, > > > "contributory infringement"). > > > > It's the act of writing the derivative software that was > > infringing. Not the same thing. > > I work on a game which can use MAD, GPL, to decode MP3s. The game itself is > MIT-licensed. I could also, if I wanted, make it support OpenSSL. I don't > think I would be in violation of the GPL (letter or spirit) as long as I > only distribute binaries that link against one or the other, and not both > at the same time. I might add a warning to the output of configure, eg. > "distribution of this binary is in violation of the GPL because you have > enabled these modules in combination:" if both were enabled, though. > > I believe doing all this would be in the spirit of the GPL, though > distributing an installer that built the binary for a user and saying > "use this to get around the GPL" certainly would not be. > > Do you think there's a violation in here somewhere? Where? Not really. But if it were a video library, rather than an mp3 decoding one, and it were the only one supported (but you could optionally build with no video output) then I'd say there was - despite the rather cheap attempt to duck the issue, it would be a clear derivative, and the first infringing action would be the creation of that derivative. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 01:29:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-07-27 11:13:08 +0100 Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >See also the "IBM Public License, Version 1.0", which GNU considers to > >be free: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > > Are we sure that follows DFSG yet? Not exactly. In the case where there aren't any interesting patents, which is the normal case, there's no problem. A bunch of stuff is in the archive on that basis. It's difficult to say what would happen if something were to come up which actually invoked the patent clauses; we never really pursued that very far. Note that this license is obsolete, and nobody who is not IBM should use it. It has been replaced by the CPL, which is more generic and a bit less silly. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:58:43PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:51:35PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > I believe doing all this would be in the spirit of the GPL, though > > > distributing an installer that built the binary for a user and saying > > > "use this to get around the GPL" certainly would not be. > > > > > > Do you think there's a violation in here somewhere? Where? > > > > Not really. But if it were a video library, rather than an mp3 > > decoding one, and it were the only one supported (but you could > > optionally build with no video output) then I'd say there was - > > despite the rather cheap attempt to duck the issue, it would be a > > clear derivative, and the first infringing action would be the > > creation of that derivative. > > Sure, that's the same as my last example, I think. It doesn't seem to > mean that the source is a derivative work of the library, though. > > Anyway, I think we're agreed as far as it usually matters in practice. The point was that "contributory infringement" isn't needed. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:56:16PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > DD's > have universally agreed to uphold the DFSG, not some additional material > that's > grounded in one interpretation of the DFSG. As a result, I'd bet that many > would be surprised when a license is declared non-free because of something > that they did not agree to. This argument applies equally to every interpretation of the DFSG, and therefore reduces to "The DFSG cannot be applied to anything". Reduction ad absurdum, etc; it's wrong. > I personally don't think that -legal does a good enough job of communicating > with the rest of the project, and I know I'm not the only one. Right, there's at least two or three of you running around and trying to undermine the project. Cut it out. This idiotic attempt to create discord is not productive; it's somewhere between trolling and deliberate sabotage. -legal is a fucking mailing list. It's nonsensical to say it "doesn't communicate with the rest of the project". Anybody can subscribe and follow the discussions, and there are public archives. Anybody who is interested should do so. This is not a cabal or a clique, the project is not divided into departments, and there is nothing secret about it. -legal exists because a fair number of people are not interested and wanted to get the discussions away from other mailing lists. These people are by definition not interested, and therefore it's stupid to complain that they weren't informed; they had the choice, and *they* chose not to. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: New ocaml licence proposal.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:39:06PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > Ok, after a first contact with upstream, there seems to be some informal > > agreement to modify the ocaml licence to the following text : > > > > > > http://svn.debian.org/viewcvs/pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/ocaml/copyright?view=markup&rev=502 > > > > Changes are : > > > > a) Modified clause 3a to allow for adding authors to and translation of > > copyright notices. > > > > b) Removed clause 6c. > > > > c) Removed choise of venue mention in the Choice of Law. > > Thank you very much for working to get this issue resolved. And no thanks for being such a fucking moron about what was a very simple problem to fix. There is absolutely no excuse for all the bullshit; this should have taken five minutes, not weeks and hundreds of mails. The job of a maintainer is to fix their package, not waste everybodies time arguing that they shouldn't fix it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 01:34:04PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > It's these sorts of potential problems, IMO, which have stifled DFSG > amendments. Mostly it's just a lack of time. You would not believe how much work it takes to put something like this together. I'm kinda planning on seeing it happen around the end of the year, starting in autumn. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
