Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:15:38PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Not that it would matter much; if somebody really wanted to use > http://www.debian.org/legal as a platform for a personal vendetta > against a license - and he could get d-l to agree that the license is > non-free - then it would be a simple matter for him to let a proxy (or > pseudonym) file an ITP and formally request a summary of the license. True, but I still recognize a difference between our doing such a thing deliberately, and being manipulated into doing it by others. -- G. Branden Robinson| Our ignorance is God; what we Debian GNU/Linux | know is science. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Green Ingersoll http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: right of publicity, or why no-advertising clauses are not necessary
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 12:14:51AM +1000, Luke Mewburn wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:54:32AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > | For what it's worth, I think the NetBSD Foundation has already reached > | this conclusion, which is why they use a 2-clause form of the BSD > | license, with both the compelled-advertising and no-advertising clauses > | removed. > > Actually, the vote to remove clause 3 (advertising), or clauses 2 > (documentation) & 3 (advertising), did not obtain a majority, so > the NetBSD Foundation license is still the "classic" 4 clause BSD. Ah. Okay, I thought I had seen the 2-clause license applied to works copyrighted by the NetBSD Foundation. Am I mistaken, or is this not the same thing as the foundation having voted on it? > Note that other organisations have contributed code to NetBSD > under what's effectively a clause 1 & 4 license, which is > considered less onerous restrictions on third party binary > distributors because they don't have to compile a list of > copyrights for their documentation to meet clause 2 and > clause 3. An example of this can be found at: > > http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/~checkout~/src/sys/arch/mips/sibyte/dev/sbmac.c?rev=1.19&content-type=text/plain > > (FWIW: I understand that this should be GPL compatible) I don't think it is. This license is clearly related to the BSD license but is not simply the original 4-clause BSD license with parts deleted. There are wording changes as well. Anyway, it's not GPL-compatible because it says: *The "Broadcom Corporation" name may not be *used to endorse or promote products derived from this software *without the prior written permission of Broadcom Corporation. This is an additional restriction not present in the GNU GPL. I think all licenses need, if the copyright holder is really terrified of such things, is to put an *informative* notice at the end of the license, after the warranty disclaimer to make it clear that it's not a "condition" under which the copyright license terms attach. (Oh yeah, it is nonsensical to make the warranty disclaimer an enumerated condition of the copyright license's attachment. Whether and how warranty can be disclaimed is determined by state laws, is irrelvant to copyright, and in most cases I'm aware of, a consumer cannot waive his warranty rights -- especially when no contract is formed, as is the case in a copyright license extended to the public.) E.g.: No permission is granted by this license to make use of (the name or likeness|any trade name, trademark, or logo) of $COPYRIGHT_HOLDER in advertising, promotional materials, or endorsements. Private individuals would probably use "the name or likeness", and corporations would probably use "any trade name, trade mark, or logo". I believe the above wording gets the message across without carelessly overreaching -- and of itself, it's GPL-compatible. > (speaking personally, not officially for TNF) Thanks very much for clarifying the issue. -- G. Branden Robinson| The software said it required Debian GNU/Linux | Windows 3.1 or better, so I [EMAIL PROTECTED] | installed Linux. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: middleman software license conflicts with OpenSSL
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 11:42:42PM +0200, Cédric Delfosse wrote: > There is two possible solutions to solve this problem: > - your software must be rewritten to use GNUTLS instead of OpenSSL, > - or, your license must add an exception to the GPL which allows > linking with OpenSSL. This wording is too strong. Please moderate it a bit in future correspondence with upstream authors and copyright holders. * There may be other solutions you haven't thought of. The debian-legal mailing list is always available as a resource to Debian package maintainers and upstream authors and copyright holders to explore what those alternatives might be. * The author or copyright holder's software or license "must" not do anything in particular at all. The Debian Project does not present ultimatums to anyone. Telling people what they "must" do sounds very much like that. At the very least, it creates confusion, and at the most, will provoke a hostile reaction and damage Debian's reputation. The Debian Project packages and provides software to its users only as countenanced by the authors and/or copyright holders of that software. Except under unusual circumstances[1], people have no obligation to make anything available to us, or write their software or license in any particular way. We respect the right of software developers to write whatever code they please, however they please. We respect the right of copyright holders to extend license of their exclusive rights under copyright laws to third parties under whatever circumstances they choose within the law. It may occasionally happen that we elect not to distribute a work due to the way it or its license is written, but we are not in a position to make demands of people, and should not give the impression that we are. In the instant case, unlicensed usage of the GPLed Middleman softare with the OpenSSL library is a problem the copyright holders in Middleman have to pursue. We, the Debian Project, are not their agents in this matter. Debian will not knowingly distribute Middleman in contravention of its license. We would like to distribute Middleman under the terms of its license, but have found we cannot do so. We look forward to working with Middleman's author(s) and copyright holder(s) to rectify this situation. [1] e.g., if we are provided binaries of GPLed source code -- G. Branden Robinson|Beware of and eschew pompous Debian GNU/Linux |prolixity. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Charles A. Beardsley http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: sendmail X license (fwd)
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 01:07:08AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 09:24:16PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > > It would be OK for the Sendmail people to say "if the user wants to > > > sue *us*, he must do it in SF" > > > I'm not really sure about that one. > > I think it would be free mainly because I cannot think of any > situation where the licensee would have any grievance (grounded in a > free license, anyway) to sue the licensor over. I can. The licensee might contribute non-trivial changes back to the work, and the licensor might claim that the license granted him the right to redistribute those changes under different terms entirely. You know, much as the QPL does. > Thus, the only suits that would be covered by such a clause would be > completely frivolous ones. I disagree. > I can symphatize with a licensor who does not wish to end up in a > *foreign* court as a result of writing software and giving it away. That's life. There are few completely risk-free activities. Personally, I'm more concerned about Microsoft getting copyright laws changed in the U.S. and other countries such that software distributed in source form at no charge is forbidden from disclaiming warranty, and perhaps even robbed of copyright protection altogether. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | kernel panic -- causal failure [EMAIL PROTECTED] | universe will now reboot http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#248853: 3270: 5250 emulation code, all rights reserved
I have reviewed the (very well-written -- kudos to Carey Evans) copyright file in question. On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 07:31:21PM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2004 10:35:27 -0400 (EDT) > Richard A Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > Sigh... did you not notice from which pool this came ? Sigh. "Non-free" means "does not satisfy the DFSG, but is freely distributable", not "all bets are off". > Even Non-Free packages must as a minimum be legally distributable by > the Project to qualify for inclusion in the archive. I'm surprised you > could be a DD and yet not know this. After witnessing the nuclear conflagration of clueless rhetoric about the meaning of the Social Contract, I am sadly not surprised at all. > > I'm all for constructive criticism; something I can take to upstream > > - and he has done some work to improve the situation based upon > > earlier conversations. However, knee-jerk responces (like this) will > > be simply routed to /dev/null. > > If you disagree with my analysis of the situation, how about providing > a coherent rebuttal as opposed to just dismissing my concerns out of > hand? Because that would require the package maintainer to think about his packages's content and licensing instead of protecting Debian's honor from "non-free flaming bigots". I suggest you save your heroic defenses of useful software that "offends the puritans" for situations where the facts are on your side. Otherwise you merely reinforce the reputation certain self-described "pragmatists" on the non-free issue are developing for carelessness and ignorance. > > If you wish to be helpful, I'll be happy to blast the copyright info > > to debian-legal for further critique. If you wish to just blather, > > consider this a *plonk*. Sadly, the blather in this instance seems to be coming from the package maintainer. Rick, I think you owe Andrew an apology. -- G. Branden Robinson| Intellectual property is neither Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual nor property. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Discuss. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Linda Richman signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 02:17:39PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 01:31:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > "cause the modified files to carry prominent notices"; it doesn't say "the > > modified files or loosely associated metadata". > > Nit: "carry" and "contain" are not the same word. > > Furthermore, "carry" has literally dozens of definitions -- none of > which are specific to "files" but many of which have some relevance > through analogy or metaphor. Hmm, I would have objected to your position, but then I thought of some of the usages of "carry", such as: * I am carrying some parasites. * He is carrying a virus. Given the metaphorical uses of "parasite" and "virus" we've seen in the Free Software community, this should be ample fodder for further flamewars. :) But more seriously, you do raise an interesting point. -- G. Branden Robinson|Religion is regarded by the common Debian GNU/Linux |people as true, by the wise as [EMAIL PROTECTED] |false, and by the rulers as useful. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 04:58:49PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > (To be clear, the "obnoxious advertising clause" is a different issue. > All we're talking about here is "the following acknowledgement", which > is used in many more licenses than the 4-clause BSD, often in much less > obnoxious ways, such as "in supporting documentation".) I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is "supporting documentation" is any less obnoxious than requiring a verbatim statement in "advertising materials". Both could be wholly independently copyright works, and it is an unreasonable arrogation of power over the work of others to attempt to control their speech in this fashion. Any license that attempts to so is fatally defective from a DFSG standpoint. -- G. Branden Robinson| If you're handsome, it's flirting. Debian GNU/Linux | If you're a troll, it's sexual [EMAIL PROTECTED] | harassment. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- George Carlin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
DFSG#10 and the Open Source Initiative
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 05:40:17PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I think you're probably right that this option, if exercised, would
> > be non-free. However, I have never seen anyone exercise this
> > particular option -- I had even forgotten it was there.
Hmmm, as had I.
>8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted
>in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted
>interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the
>Program under this License may add an explicit geographical
>distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that
>distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus
>excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the
>limitation as if written in the body of this License. GPL §8
>
> Yes, GPL §8 if exercised with a non-null country set would fail DFSG
> #5 and #1.
Hmmm, yes.
> Even ignoring the DFSG issues, as a service to the authors of such
> works, Debian should refrain from distributing them in the first
> place.
Yes.
> Works that are exercising §8 are most likely doing so because the
> author fears criminal or civil retribution in the excluded countries,
> and as Debian is basically worldwide, Debian's distribution of such
> works will likely endanger the authors.
Yes. That we would rule them non-DFSG-free would thus be a disservice
neither to the author, nor to the Free Software Foundation, nor --
ultimately -- to our users. After all, if we were to flout such a
restriction and get authors of Free Software into trouble, they're less
likely to contribute to the intellectual commons, and that weakens our
mission, and promotes the shackling of our users to proprietary
technology.
I think your observation provides more support for striking DFSG#10 as
such from the document.
The GNU GPL is *not* *always* a DFSG-free license. Like any other
license, it can be interpreted by a copyright holder in ways that are
not DFSG-free. That very, very few copyright holders actually do this
is beside the point[1].
I think we should work harder to defeat the meme that slapping a
particular license on your work gets you a "free pass" into Debian main.
Whether a work is DFSG-free or not depends not just on the actual
language of the license, but how the copyright holder (or his agent)
enforces it.
It is counterproductive to lead people to believe that they can slap the
BSD, GPL, or Artistic licenses on a piece of software, apply perverse
interpretations to the terms of that license, insist that Debian endorse
their viewpoint, and then excoriate us as hypocrites if we do not
subordinate our judgement to theirs.
I fear DFSG #10 (unintentionally) encourages this.
It's also worth noting that #10 is the only clause of the DFSG that the
Open Source Initiative (OSI) dropped outright when deriving the Open
Source Definition (OSD)[2].
What they've replaced it with ("License Must Be Technology-Neutral") is
actually quite nice. As Andrew Suffield said[3], licenses should be
specifications, not solutions.
We could do a lot worse than to be a bit ecumenical with OSI on this
particular point.
[1] In fact, I can only think of one case, but that's a different
flamewar.
[2] http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
[3] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00822.html
--
G. Branden Robinson| No math genius, eh? Then perhaps
Debian GNU/Linux | you could explain to me where you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | got these... PENROSE TILES!
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Stephen R. Notley
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 02:24:41AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > On May 21, 2004, at 18:36, Lewis Jardine wrote: > > >8 bears a lot of resemblance to "don't break the law" clauses > > IMO, "Mexicans can't distribute this software" isn't free, even if its > part of the GPL. Let's not get carried away. The potential restriction in the GNU GPL clause 8 is geographic in nature, not a withholding of the license terms from people based on their *inherent* characteristics. Yes, if applied by the copyright holder, it would fail the DFSG either way, but I find it a little distasteful to imply that the GNU GPL was intended to promote nationalist prejudice. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | "Bother," said Pooh, as he was [EMAIL PROTECTED] | assimilated by the Borg. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: updated mysql exception clause draft
gt; removal of the derived-work-may-not-bundle-mysqld clause. For reference, > the current version can be seen here: > > http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/foss-exception.html > > Can anyone spot anything else in the draft that might > keep us from being able to link things against libclientmysql12? I suspect we'll still have to assess the linkages on a case-by-case basis, or at least be prepared to do so if someone raises a fuss. Does that answer your question? -- G. Branden Robinson|A committee is a life form with six Debian GNU/Linux |or more legs and no brain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: IBM documentation license
I'm only going to comment where I disagree with or want to amplify Mr. Nerode. On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 04:36:24PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > Such reproduction must be accompanied by the following credit > > line: "Reprinted by permission from International Business > > Machines Corporation copyright (year)" which should include the > > years in the original copyright notice for publication named. > Acceptable restriction. Requires precise wording. No translation allowed. Not DFSG-free. > > The credit line normally should appear on the page where the > > reproduction appears either under the title or as a footnote. > Unsure, but "normally should" seems to give some broad leeway. Not enough, IMO. > > It is the understanding of INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES > > CORPORATION that the purpose for which its publications are being > > reproduced is accurate and true as stated in your attached > > request. > So the permission only applies to a specific "attached request"?... That's bad. > > No permission is granted to use trademarks of International > > Business Machines Corporation and its affiliates apart from the > > incidental appearance of such trademarks in the titles, text, and > > illustrations of the named publications. The appearance should not > > be of a manner which might cause confusion of origin or appear to > > endorse non-IBM products. Any proposed use of trademarks apart > > from such incidental appearance requires separate approval in > > writing and ordinarily cannot be given. > This is fine; trademark protection clauses should all look like this. Well, they should certainly look more like this than the garbage that is in the BSD license. > > COPYRIGHT LICENSE: > > > > This information contains sample application programs in source > > language, which illustrates programming techniques on various > > operating platforms. You may copy, modify, and distribute these > > sample programs in any form without payment to IBM, > This is a license grant for the 'sample programs', and it's a broader > license grant than the general grant for the 'documentation'... Where's the permission to distribute modified copies? I see no "and/or". This is the UWash/PINE problem. > > If you are viewing this information softcopy, the photographs and > > color illustrations may not appear. > Informational, no effect. Depends on what "may not" means. Sometimes I just love my native language. :( -- G. Branden Robinson|Of two competing theories or Debian GNU/Linux |explanations, all other things [EMAIL PROTECTED] |being equal, the simpler one is to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |be preferred. -- Occam's Razor signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#247802: ITP: libfasttrack-gift -- giFT plugin for the fastrack network
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:39:16AM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote: > Don't forget SAMBA - it's a reverse-engineer of one of the key > intellectual properties of one of the richest, and most sue-happy > companies in the entire world. If Microsoft could sue the SAMBA team > (and therefore Debian) over copyright or patent infringement, surely > they would have done so by now? > > I think it is fair to say that if SAMBA is not considered a risk to > Debian, neither should any other code reverse-engineered for purposes of > compatibility. What may be an issue though is if libfasttrack-gift has > infringed copyright by directly copying code from fastrack, rather than > by black-box reverse engineering. I'd like to agree with you, but the reason M$ does not sue the SAMBA developers may be because they have much, much more to lose. A court precendent against them on the merits would destroy Microsoft as we know it. Sherman Networks may be sufficiently diversified that they feel they can be ornery. How's their stock doing? In any case, my point is that failure to sue is not precedent for anything. It is suggestive at best, but I personally would not go to court with only inductive reasoning on my side if I could help it. -- G. Branden Robinson|It's like I have a shotgun in my Debian GNU/Linux |mouth, I've got my finger on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] |trigger, and I like the taste of http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |the gunmetal. -- Robert Downey, Jr. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: IBM Public License (again)
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 06:18:17PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > > I just spotted a clause which I *really* don't like, however: > > > "Each party waives its rights to a jury trial in any resulting > > > litigation." > > > > > > That's not a legitimate requirement of a free software license, is it? > > > > No. I didn't notice that earlier (mostly because I only looked at the > > clauses the original license review request mentioned), but that clause > > clearly makes the license non-free. > > I'm not so sure. Choice of venue already limits the different ways > that a party can bring suit. This just says that you have to do it > with a judge or arbitration. In essence, it is limiting the venue > even more. But the venue doesn't necessarily favor one party over the > other. I call bullshit. Would you waive your right against self-incrimination? Before tossing aside the right to jury trial as a bauble, I suggest you research English and Colonial American history. As Alan Dershowitz put it, "rights come from wrongs". We generally can only enumerate the rights we are supposed to enjoy because people are always coming up with creative new ways to fuck over their fellow human being. I've long been uncomfortable with the IBMPL, and the more I see of it, the more queasy I get. -- G. Branden Robinson| I'm a firm believer in not drawing Debian GNU/Linux | trend lines before you have data [EMAIL PROTECTED] | points. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Tim Ottinger signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: IBM Public License (again)
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 11:30:47AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-05-14 10:50:26 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:33:31AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > >>It imposes restrictions on what actions you can take over other > >>software. > >That might make it incompatible with the GPL, but this is a typical > >characteristic of many licenses -- including DFSG licenses. > > Can you show me another DSFG-free licence that terminates depending on > action taken not involving the covered work? I am tempted to regard Raul's failure to rebut this point as dispositive. -- G. Branden Robinson|Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny Debian GNU/Linux |that reading it will cause an [EMAIL PROTECTED] |aneurysm. This is not that .sig. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: IBM Public License (again)
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 07:45:40PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > Gah. I really have to read more carefully. I read the license again, > and it says that you have to sue a Contributor or sue about a patent > related to the Program. So if SCO had distributed stuff under the IBM > CPL, They may very well have done so -- SCO is not known for innovation. > then IBM would have lost all patent rights. It still sounds like > a license bug, but not quite so serious. If we can establish a plausible case here, it does make the issue of the IBMPL/CPL ripe for reconsideration by IBM. It would be nice if they'd work with the community in developing the successor to the IBMPL/CPL. -- G. Branden Robinson| If we believe absurdities, we Debian GNU/Linux | shall commit atrocities. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Voltaire http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: IBM Public License (again)
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 07:48:13PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On May 17, 2004, at 19:10, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > >IIRC, jury trials are only a Constitutional right where *criminal* > >proceedings are concerned, not for civil suits. > > Amendment VII > > In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed > twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no > fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the > United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amen! Don't you bastards make me quote Che Guevara and James Madison in the same message! -- G. Branden Robinson| You could wire up a dead rat to a Debian GNU/Linux | DIMM socket and the PC BIOS memory [EMAIL PROTECTED] | test would pass it just fine. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Ethan Benson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:59:22AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:03:18AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is "supporting
> > documentation" is any less obnoxious than requiring a verbatim statement
> > in "advertising materials".
> >
> > Both could be wholly independently copyright works, and it is an
> > unreasonable arrogation of power over the work of others to attempt to
> > control their speech in this fashion.
> >
> > Any license that attempts to so is fatally defective from a DFSG
> > standpoint.
>
> This argument seems to apply to the X11/MIT license:
>
> "... copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in all copies of
> the Software and that both the above copyright notice(s) and this
> permission notice appear in supporting documentation."
Well, I interpret the "copyright notice(s) and this permission notice"
to mean the copyright statement and license terms themselves.
We generally don't have a problem with that.
> which requires that a verbatim statement ("this permission notice") be
> placed in supporting documentation.
We are required by copyright law to preserve applicable copyright
notices.
We're generally required to include license texts verbatim anyway, and
this is not inimical to software freedom as I understand it, because it
guarantees that the user understands what his or her rights are (or, in
the case of some works under non-copyleft licenses, which rights may
have been taken away).
I *do* see a difference between a license text and a disjunct
advertising clause like the original 4-clause BSD license's.
However, I would agree that even the MIT/X11 license is non-free if one
is compelled to include a work's copyright notices and MIT/X11
permission notice in works that are not derived from it.
The good news is that I do not know of any copyright holder, possibly
other than X-Oz Technologies, Inc., and The XFree86 Project, Inc., who
interpret the MIT/X11 that way.
There is even evidence that those organizations do *not* interpret the
MIT/X11 license that way, as each organization has promulgated new
licenses (the "X-Oz license" and the XFree86 1.1 License, respectively)
that add terms similar to the BSD advertising clause.
> This just seems like another case where normally free licenses can be
> interpreted in non-free ways: if "supporting documentation" is read as
> "in all documentation, even those you didn't write and don't distribute",
> it's not free. (I've never heard of anyone doing that; I've always read
> it as "in the README, CREDITS or COPYING file".)
I entirely agree. While it is true that any normally DFSG-free license
can be perversely interpreted, I know of no actually non-DFSG-free
application of the MIT/X11 license.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux | // // // / /
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | EI 'AANIIGOO 'AHOOT'E
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG#10 and the Open Source Initiative
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 07:53:50AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:23:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I think your observation provides more support for striking DFSG#10 as > > such from the document. > > Or for adding a constraint that there be no explicit statement restricting > distribution to any countries. > > The problem with striking it entirely is that we then have to deal with > the people who misinterpret the DFSG to claim that the GPL is not free. > Which was the reason that clause was placed there in the first place. I'm not going to be able to regard this as a credible claim without a citation. -- G. Branden Robinson| The greatest productive force is Debian GNU/Linux | human selfishness. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: IBM Public License (again)
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 12:10:51PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 11:30:47AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > Can you show me another DSFG-free licence that terminates depending on > > > action taken not involving the covered work? > > On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:11:27AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I am tempted to regard Raul's failure to rebut this point as dispositive. > > Yeah, I think I've pretty much exhausted everything I can think of to > say in defense of that license. Not all licenses are deserving of defense. :) > I wonder if the DFSG should be modified to include "doesn't terminate > arbitrarily" as an explicit guideline (with text saying "a licence that > terminates depending on action taken not involving the covered work is > not free"). I'd be open to a DFSG #9 argument. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software.[1] This would be a "spirit", not "letter" argument. A license that terminates if the licensee pets a cat is just as onerous as one that requires that the licensee pet a cat[2]. > You can kind of get that from the other guidelines, but none seem to > address this point directly. No, none seem to hammer on it directly, because it's so outrageously non-free. [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract [2] http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html -- G. Branden Robinson|The errors of great men are Debian GNU/Linux |venerable because they are more [EMAIL PROTECTED] |fruitful than the truths of little http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |men. -- Friedrich Nietzsche signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#251209: hwb: Upstream does not own the rights to the material
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 06:47:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Correct. > > Interesting question to debian-legal for curiosity's sake: could the > right to distribute "partially or in whole" be stretched enough to argue > that modified versions are just various partial distributions of hwb > combined with some additional material? I'm inclined to think no, but > it might be arguable. I think a (U.S.) court would probably piss on us for trying that. "Reproduction in part", as I understand it, generally refers to excerpting or, at most, abridgement. The freedom to modify that we seek would afford us much more latitude than that. In general, I think we should respect the wishes of the licensor, even in they are not DFSG-free. There are occasional exceptions to this, as in the case where something that has been handled as Free Software in the past falls under the control of a new organization that is hostile to us, but we should be careful and deliberate about such exceptions. -- G. Branden Robinson| Reality is what refuses to go away Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Philip K. Dick http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[lx@se.linux.org: Re: right of publicity, or why no-advertising clauses are not necessary]
Forwarding to list with permission of author.
- Forwarded message from "Alexander Nordström, Svenska Linuxföreningen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: "Alexander Nordström, Svenska Linuxföreningen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: right of publicity, or why no-advertising clauses are not necessary
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 17:05:07 +0800
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=4.0 tests=none autolearn=ham version=2.63
Hello Branden,
I'm replying off-list as I expect you may wish to collate this type of
information in summary form in the interest of keeping the list from
cluttering, and because I am not subscribed to the list. (I got word of your
investigation into the matter through the debian-news list.) I hope that's
okay.
To answer part A of your request, then, in this case specifically regarding
Swedish legislation, the short answer is yes, the clause in question is
redundant.
Translated and summarized from Lag (1978:800) om namn och bild i reklam (Law
regarding name and picture in advertising)[1]:
[1] http://rixlex.riksdagen.se/htbin/thw/1993/94:K209?
${BASE}=SFST&${THWIDS}=5.28]1084961848227826&${HTML}=SFST_DOK
A person's name, picture, or other identifying information must not be used
without consent by a tradesman or their representative for purposes of
advertising a good or service. Violations are punishable by fine and give
right to claim. Damages need not be financial. Other remedies including
publication of the court order and destruction of advertising material may
apply. Negligence and acting as an accessory carry similar consequences.
Criminal prosecution must be preceded by a complaint from a member of the
public.
The Swedish legal system is based on the Scandinavic system, which is not
related to English Common Law or Civil (Napoleonic) Law; the other Nordic
countries (Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands) are
likely to have similar laws. This law is applicable in all of Sweden; local
governments do not have shared jurisdiction on the matter.
Disclaimer: This is all to the best of my understanding and knowledge. I am
not a lawyer.
Hope that helps and good luck with your work on the issue.
--
Alex Nordstrom
- End forwarded message -
--
G. Branden Robinson| When dogma enters the brain, all
Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual activity ceases.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Anton Wilson
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On May 25, 2004, at 01:03, Branden Robinson wrote: > >I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is "supporting > >documentation" is any less obnoxious than requiring a verbatim > >statement > >in "advertising materials". > > I disagree. It's usually in any of the "supporting documentation" vs. > in all of the advertising materials. The distinction is in whether the "supporting documentation" or "advertising materials" are derived works of the licensed Work or not. In other words, it doesn't matter what $FOO is, > i.e., we include it in the supporting documentation > /usr/share/doc/PACAGE/copyright, which we have to include anyway. We have imposed that requirement upon ourselves[1]. We should not be forced into it. That we have to distribute the copyright notice and license statement, which is a reasonable requirement, is not the same thing as requiring us to distribute them in a particular way. There is a reasonable expectation that we will not attempt to obfuscate or obscure such information. The fact that we have chosen to implement a standardized location on a per-package basis for it provides us a defense against accusations of doing so. Needless to say, some folks feel that presenting such statements in a form and manner less jarring than a TV commercial or music video fails to afford them sufficient recognition. I do not believe the consensus of this mailing list is in congruence with that sentiment. [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile -- G. Branden Robinson|Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, Debian GNU/Linux |and I have disposable income that [EMAIL PROTECTED] |I'll spend to find out how to get http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |people more of it. -- Penn Jillette signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:50:31PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > On May 25, 2004, at 01:03, Branden Robinson wrote: > > >I don't think requiring a verbatim statement is "supporting > > >documentation" is any less obnoxious than requiring a verbatim > > >statement > > >in "advertising materials". > > > > I disagree. It's usually in any of the "supporting documentation" vs. > > in all of the advertising materials. > > > > i.e., we include it in the supporting documentation > > /usr/share/doc/PACAGE/copyright, which we have to include anyway. > > Some require it in the "end-user documentation" (Apache), which seems > stronger. That's a problem, then. > (The copyright file isn't really for end users, since you > shouldn't have to accept free licenses to use free software.) Eh? What does simple notification have to do with acceptance ceremonies? I'm going to have to differ with you here. The copyright file is for everyone. That we make it available in plain-text, uncompressed form rather than in spinning, throbbing OpenGL-rendered 3D text over a thumping dance music soundtrack is a feature, not a bug. > The real intent of that wording seems to be eg. manuals. It would be good to get clarification on this point from the ASF. -- G. Branden Robinson|It's like I have a shotgun in my Debian GNU/Linux |mouth, I've got my finger on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] |trigger, and I like the taste of http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |the gunmetal. -- Robert Downey, Jr. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG#10 and the Open Source Initiative
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 06:36:12AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > > The problem with striking it entirely is that we then have to deal with > > > the people who misinterpret the DFSG to claim that the GPL is not free. > > > Which was the reason that clause was placed there in the first place. > > On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 02:56:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I'm not going to be able to regard this as a credible claim without a > > citation. > > Here's Bruce's first draft of the DFSG (which expanded on what > the policy manual had to say). This was before discussion. I'm not neglecting this message, but I have not had time to digest it yet. I appreciate you gathering this historical context; it's important. I will reply when I have grokked in fullness, or given it the college try. :) -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Extra territorium jus dicenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] | impune non paretur. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:19:55PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:37:43AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Some require it in the "end-user documentation" (Apache), which seems > > > stronger. > > > > That's a problem, then. > > The full clause: > > 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. > > Some discussion on this down in one of the other threads observed > that "may appear in the software itself" does clearly include > /usr/share/doc/foo/copyright, or wherever the license text is--it > doesn't say "in the binary itself". So, if this interpretation is > valid, it's still an annoying verbatim requirement, but without > contamination issues. How does the ASF interpret the clause? -- G. Branden Robinson| I'm a firm believer in not drawing Debian GNU/Linux | trend lines before you have data [EMAIL PROTECTED] | points. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Tim Ottinger signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:54:03AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > > i.e., we include it in the supporting documentation > > > /usr/share/doc/PACAGE/copyright, which we have to include anyway. > > On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:34:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > We have imposed that requirement upon ourselves[1]. We should not be > > forced into it. That we have to distribute the copyright notice and > > license statement, which is a reasonable requirement, is not the same > > thing as requiring us to distribute them in a particular way. > > This may be a nit, but we don't distribute the copyright notice in > /usr/share/doc/*/$FILENAME -- instead, that's the default location for > it to be unpacked. Fair enough. -- G. Branden Robinson| Never attribute to human stupidity Debian GNU/Linux | that which can be adequately [EMAIL PROTECTED] | explained by GNU Libtool. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Scott James Remnant signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#251983: libcwd: QPL license is non-free; package should not be in main
't the final word either - some other tricky bit of nonfreeness might be invented which is not covered by any of our current tests, or something might fail a test as it's currently worded but still be determined to be free software. 1. The Desert Island test. Imagine a castaway on a desert island with a solar-powered computer. This would make it impossible to fulfil any requirement to make changes "publicly available" or to send patches to some particular place. This holds even if such requirements are only "upon request", as the castaway might be able to receive messages but be unable to send them. To be free, software must be modifiable by this unfortunate castaway, who must also be able to legally share modifications with friends on the island.[3] [3] http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html [4] 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches. The following restrictions apply to modifications: [...] b. When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer. [5] http://www.debian.org/News/1998/19981008 [6] http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/announcements/0043.html [7] http://www.trolltech.com/company/model.html -- G. Branden Robinson| Why should I allow that same God Debian GNU/Linux | to tell me how to raise my kids, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | who had to drown His own? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Green Ingersoll signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 06:28:12AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > I have been toying with the possibility of rewriting the DFSG such > that it enumerates which things a free license *can* do, rather than > just give examples of things it *cannot*. I think that such a revision > could get the guidelines to be much closer to the *actual* practise of > how we evaluate licenses than if we simply make local adjustments to > the current DFSG. The downside is that the whole truth cannot be > condensed into the "ten commandments" schema of the current DFSG. I personally do not think it is a good idea to undertake this endeavor as a DFSG replacement. I explicated my "theory of DFSG" operation in a mail to this list in March of 2003: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00211.html That said, I do very much appreciate your work in very methodically documenting the many silly loopholes and exceptions we have accreted over the years to due to our haste and carelesness -- and also the many slick tricks licensors have tried to play to undermine the spirit of free software while abiding by some expressions of its "letter".) I think your document will end up being very valuable to us, but I personally do not feel that its approach makes it suitable as a replacement for the DFSG. Please don't interpret anything in this message as a backhanded compliment, though I am sure we probably disagree as to what the DFSG should be. It was obviously a lot of hard work to prepare this document, and reading it was like a trip down the debian-legal flamewar memory lane, with the outcomes neatly boiled down. I think your work on this document is a valuable service to the Project. -- G. Branden Robinson| Psychology is really biology. Debian GNU/Linux | Biology is really chemistry. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Chemistry is really physics. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | Physics is really math. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Which license for a documentation?
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 11:50:31AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote: > I know what "please" means. What I fail to understand is what it is > that is so terrible about asking for credit for your work. Nothing at all is wrong with that, and anyone who characterizes the Debian Project as asserting this is wrong, and may be being deliberately deceptive. There is a distinction between asking for credit for one's work, and requiring that those who use your work pay homage to in you some particular way. -- G. Branden Robinson|The first thing the communists do Debian GNU/Linux |when they take over a country is to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |outlaw cockfighting. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Oklahoma State Senator John Monks signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 12:48:10AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:20:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > How does the ASF interpret the clause? > > I don't know, but if you think this clause is ambiguous enough that > clarification from Apache is worthwhile, remember that they're not > the only ones that use this license, and their interpretation of it > is only meaningful for Apache. I know. But their perspective would be useful, just as the FSF's is for the GNU GPL. -- G. Branden Robinson| You don't just decide to break Debian GNU/Linux | Kubrick's code of silence and then [EMAIL PROTECTED] | get drawn away from it to a http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | discussion about cough medicine. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > # 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. [...] > What is the impact of the third paragraph? > > I know it is not binding in the USA, since a copyright conveyance must > be explicitly signed and must identify the specific works for which > copyright is being transferred (17 USC 204 for those not intimately > familiar with the US Code). > > 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? It is not just GPL-incompatible, it is non-free. Your modifications, corrections, or extensions have value. Best Practical Solutions, LLC, is asserting ownership in something you have created. This is no different from charging you money in exchange for the right to exercise your freedoms under the license. This clause violates the intent of DFSG 1, in my opinion. "The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." It does not seem reasonable to me to assume that the license *may* require royalty or other fees for other activities, apart from sale, normally protected by copyright but which are part and parcel of software freedom. It would not, however, surprise me if people voting in favor of proposal D in the current General Resolution[1], didn't find a DFSG-violation here. Many of them don't seem to be able find a DFSG violation in anything at all, because only those who are '"Holier Than Stallman", i.e., the fringe fanatics.' really care about freedom. IMO the author of request-tracker3 needs to be contacted ASAP and their intentions confirmed. It is possible this clause was inserted into the license without its ramifications being properly considered -- particularly given that it is GPL-incompatible and RT is deeply commingled with many Perl modules licensed under the GNU GPL. [1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | // // // / / [EMAIL PROTECTED] | EI 'AANIIGOO 'AHOOT'E http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
PROPOSED: the Dictator Test (was: Contractual requirements [was: request-tracker3: license shadiness])
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:49:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 11:57:38PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > This comment has just clarified something that's been rattling around > > half-formed in my head for a little while now, regarding Free licences. I > > don't know if it's been raised before, but I think it bears discussion: > > > > "A licence cannot be Free if it disallows actions which, in the absence of > > acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by Copyright law, or imposes > > restrictions not present by Copyright law". > > > > To put it another way (and closer to Brian's wording), if the licence isn't > > simply a grant of permission but requires things of me which I would > > otherwise be allowed to do, it can't be free. > > As far as I (and d-legal, I believe) understand it, to disallow these > things, you need to form a contract (an EULA). Most restrictions which > require this are non-free. > > I wouldn't quite go so far as to generalize it to "all"; it's probably better > to look at the restrictions on their own merits, which will usually also show > them to be non-free (and in a more direct way than "this probably isn't > enforcable under copyright law alone"). Attempting to go being copyright law > is a good hint that something may be wrong, though. 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? -- G. Branden Robinson| Life is what happens to you while Debian GNU/Linux | you're busy making other plans. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- John Lennon http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
xinetd license possibly violates DFSG #4
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:24:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Side note: while researching this further, I discovered that the xinetd > license requires keeping the original version number and only appending > new numbers: > > > 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. There is a note in the license file giving the current > upstream maintainer an exception, but that does not change the > requirement for other distributors. I agree; this goes too far even for DFSG #4. xinetd maintainer(s), can you contact upstream and see if this license term can be modified? DFSG #4 permits the license holder to insist that any human-readable self-identification that the Work does be altered to denote its modified status, but specifying the exact form of the change asks a little too much. I propose the following term instead: 1. Modified forms of the work must carry a clear and unambiguous notice that they are modified in versioning information intended for human interpretation. For example, the first 3 components of the version information (i.e., ..) may remain unchanged, while a new component is appended to indicate a modification level. Entitling the modified form with a clearly distinct name, or a prominent notice that the work was modified, also satisfies this requirement. Machine-interpreted versioning or interface information is not bound by this requirement. Would you like a bug report opened against the xinetd package about this? -- G. Branden Robinson|Nixon was so crooked that he needed Debian GNU/Linux |servants to help him screw his [EMAIL PROTECTED] |pants on every morning. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Hunter S. Thompson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Blast from the Past: the LaTeX Project Public License, version 1.3
Hi guys, Last year I posted an analysis in two parts[1][2] of the then-draft version of the LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL). In December, Frank Küster asked what the status of the LPPL was[3], and I told him I didn't know[4]. Well, that same month, the LaTeX Project folks finalized the license and and announced it[5][6]. They also announced that they're seeking Open Source certification of the license[7]. Oddly, the version of the LPPL shipped in tetex-base[8] is still version 1.2, and a review of the tetex package changelog shows no new upstream release since 2.0.2.[9]. I am therefore not sure Debian is shipping anything under the new license yet. Nevertheless, I thought I would present a diff and word diff of the last draft submitted to us, and the final version of LPPL 1.3. It looks like Mr. Mittelbach and the rest of the LaTeX3 Project took almost all of advice. I feel good about that. :) [1] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [3] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [4] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [5] http://www.latex-project.org/lppl/ [6] http://www.latex-project.org/ltnews/ltnews15.pdf [7] http://www.latex-project.org/ltnews/ltnews16.pdf [8] file:///usr/share/doc/tetex-base/lppl.txt.gz [9] file:///usr/share/doc/tetex-base/changelog.Debian.gz -- G. Branden Robinson| "I came, I saw, she conquered." Debian GNU/Linux | The original Latin seems to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] | been garbled. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein --- lppl-1.3-draft.txt 2004-07-06 17:36:38.0 -0500 +++ lppl-1.3.txt2004-02-29 17:38:10.0 -0500 @@ -1,27 +1,39 @@ + +The LaTeX Project Public License +=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- + +LPPL Version 1.3 2003-12-01 + +Copyright 1999 2002-03 LaTeX3 Project +Everyone is allowed to distribute verbatim copies of this +license document, but modification of it is not allowed. + + PREAMBLE -The LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL) is the license under which the -the LaTeX kernel and the base LaTeX packages are distributed. +The LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL) is the primary license under +which the the LaTeX kernel and the base LaTeX packages are distributed. -You may use this license for any work that you have written and wish -to distribute. This license may be particularly suitable if your -work is TeX-related (such as a LaTeX package), but you may use it -with small modifications even if your work is unrelated to TeX. +You may use this license for any work of which you hold the copyright +and which you wish to distribute. This license may be particularly +suitable if your work is TeX-related (such as a LaTeX package), but +you may use it with small modifications even if your work is unrelated +to TeX. The section `WHETHER AND HOW TO DISTRIBUTE WORKS UNDER THIS LICENSE', below, gives instructions, examples, and recommendations for authors who are considering distributing their works under this license. -This license gives conditions under which The Work may be distributed +This license gives conditions under which a work may be distributed and modified, as well as conditions under which modified versions of -The Work may be distributed. +that work may be distributed. We, the LaTeX3 Project, believe that the conditions below give you -the freedom to make and distribute modified versions of The Work +the freedom to make and distribute modified versions of your work that conform with whatever technical specifications you wish while maintaining the availability, integrity, and reliability of -The Work. If you do not see how to achieve your goal while +that work. If you do not see how to achieve your goal while meeting these conditions, then read the document `cfgguide.tex' and `modguide.tex' in the base LaTeX distribution for suggestions. @@ -31,52 +43,51 @@ In this license document the following terms are used: - `The Work' + `Work' Any work being distributed under this License. `Derived Work' -Any work that under any applicable law is derived from The Work. +Any work that under any applicable law is derived from the Work. `Modification' Any procedure that produces a Derived Work under any applicable law -- for example, the production of a file containing an -original file associated with The Work or a significant portion of +original file associated with the Work or a significant portion of such a file, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. `Modify' -Apply any procedure that produces a Derived Work under any +To apply any procedure that produces a Derived Work under any applicable law. - `Distribution' -Making copies of The Work available from one ma
Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 06:28:28PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > >Your modifications, corrections, or extensions have value. > ... > > This clause violates the intent of DFSG 1, in my opinion. "The license > > may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." It does not seem > > reasonable to me to assume that the license *may* require royalty or > > other fees for other activities, apart from sale, normally protected by > > copyright but which are part and parcel of software freedom. > > You should provide a more significant objection than "your modifications > have value". I don't think it's an "insigificant" objection. Let's consider the converse. No modification can ever achieve independent copyrightability. But that is clearly not true -- it is commonplace for people add their copyright notices legitimately to files they modify. Why does the FSF ask for assignment of copyright of substantial modifications to their works (like Apple's Objective-C frontend to gcc) if such things cannot be copyrightable? Since "your modifications cannot have value" is clearly absurd, it must be the case that "your modifications can have value". > "Distribution of source", as required by the GPL, has value, so your > logic would this mean that the GPL is non-free. No, because modification is not distribution, and I cannot copyright my act of distribution[1]. [1] I won't bring up the phenomenon of "performance art" if you won't... -- G. Branden Robinson| I'm a firm believer in not drawing Debian GNU/Linux | trend lines before you have data [EMAIL PROTECTED] | points. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Tim Ottinger signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:12:56PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > > > # 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. > > > It is not just GPL-incompatible, it is non-free. > > > > Your modifications, corrections, or extensions have value. Best > > Practical Solutions, LLC, is asserting ownership in something you have > > created. > > No, it's not. It's only saying that *if* you submit them for inclusion in > the work. Incorrect. It doesn't say "you" anywhere in that clause. > Nothing is forcing you to do that. Right; but it remains true even if someone steals your modifications, corrections or extensions to the work off your computer and submits them to Best Practical Solutions, LLC. The license places no restrictions on who performs the act of submission, or under what circumstances the submission is made. If Best Practical doesn't mean the clause to be interpreted so broadly, they shouldn't have written it so broadly. "When submitted" does not indicate who submits it. Given that, your changes effectively become the property of Best Practical as soon as they are written -- unless you're an omnipotent being who can prevent them from ever falling into Best Practical's hands. > I think it's different. Their intention is obvious Not to me. Their intention is not stated in the license. You are conjecturing. > -- to cover their arses against the possibility that someone submits a > patch and then sues for a portion of their profits. That's plausible. It is not, however, necessarily true. > If you don't want to pass ownership of your patch > to them, don't send it in. This is merely an attempt to reduce the hassle > of accepting patches. Please play closer attention to what the license *actually says*. > It seems reasonable to me. That the license you imagine seems reasonable doesn't have a lot of bearing on the reasonableness of the license we're actually dealing with. > > IMO the author of request-tracker3 needs to be contacted ASAP and their > > intentions confirmed. It is possible this clause was inserted into the > > license without its ramifications being properly considered -- > > particularly given that it is GPL-incompatible and RT is deeply > > commingled with many Perl modules licensed under the GNU GPL. > > Whatever I think about the reasonableness of the condition and its DFSG- > freeness, you may have a point here. I'm not saying they don't mean what you think they mean. But if they do, they should say so. -- G. Branden Robinson| Do not attempt to disprove the Debian GNU/Linux | four-colour theorem on your flag! [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Josh Parsons http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: PROPOSED: the Dictator Test (was: Contractual requirements [was: request-tracker3: license shadiness])
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 01:13:43AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > "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"). I'm deliberately trying to come up with a catchy and emotive name for the test. -- G. Branden Robinson|Any man who does not realize that Debian GNU/Linux |he is half an animal is only half a [EMAIL PROTECTED] |man. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Thornton Wilder signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: PROPOSED: the Dictator Test (was: Contractual requirements [was: request-tracker3: license shadiness])
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 02:38:46AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >suggest that any license which attempts to prohibit that which would > >otherwise be legal is non-free by definition. > > I think this would actually bring debian closer to FSF's position: Gosh, that could be a real liability, given the frothy types who already accuse members of our project of trying to be "holier than Stallman"[1] and of being "fringe fanatics"[2]. On a more serious note, thanks for pointing that out. The unfortunate GFDL situation has done a lot to obscure the very great deal that Debian and the FSF have in common. > IIRC, if it requires a contract to be formed, there needs to be some > sort of consideration from licensee to licensor in exchange for the > permissions. That's true as far as I understand U.S. contract law, which isn't very. > Could that consideration arguably be called a fee and therefore this test > would be a simple illustration of DFSG 1? I think so. Let's review the legal meaning of "consideration". From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [bouvier]: CONSIDERATION, contracts. A compensation which is paid, or all inconvenience suffered by the, party from whom it proceeds. Or it is the reason which moves the contracting party to enter into the contract. 2 Bl. Com. 443. Viner defines it to be a cause or occasion meritorious, requiring a mutual recompense in deed or in law. Abr. tit. Consideration, A. A consideration of some sort or other, is so absolutely necessary to the forming a good contract, that a nudum pactum, or an agreement to do or to pay any thing on one side, without any compensation to the other, is totally void in law, and a man cannot be compelled to perform it. Dr. & Stud. d. 2, c. 24 3 Call, R. 439 7 Conn. 57; 1 Stew. R. 51 5 Mass. 301 4 John. R. 235; C. Yerg. 418; Cooke, R. 467; 6 Halst. R. 174; 4 Munf. R. 95. But contracts under seal are valid without a consideration; or, perhaps, more properly speaking, every bond imports in itself a sufficient consideration, though none be mentioned. 11 Serg. & R. 107. Negotiable instruments, as bills of exchange and promissory notes, carry with them prima facie evidence of consideration. 2 Bl. Com. 445. 3. The consideration must be some benefit to the party by whom the promise is made, or to a third person at his instance; or some detriment sustained at the instance of the party promising, by the party in whose favor the promise is made. 4 East, 455;1 Taunt. 523 Chitty on Contr. 7 Dr. & Stu. 179; 1 Selw. N. P. 39, 40; 2 pet. 182 1 Litt. 123; 3 John. 100; 6 Mass. 58 2 Bibb. 30; 2 J. J. Marsh. 222; 5 Cranch, 142, 150 2 N. H. Rep. 97 Wright, It. 660; 14 John. R. 466 13 S. & R. 29 3 M. Gr. & Sc. 321. > >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? > > I have been referring to these things as "enforcement-by-copyright". > Maybe it's the "Private Laws Test"? I still like "Dictator Test". Doesn't a Dictator get to make up his own laws? [1] Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00019.html [2] Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00205.html -- G. Branden Robinson| One man's "magic" is another man's Debian GNU/Linux | engineering. "Supernatural" is a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | null word. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: PROPOSED: the Dictator Test (was: Contractual requirements
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 02:40:01AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote: > > On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> 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? > > The Ideocrat Test? Or perhaps Egocrat? Heh, the latter will attract the attention of Objectivists...which is almost never desirable. ;-) > Autocrat or dictator make it sound like there's a legitimate (i.e. > government) third party imposing conditions on the software. It does? Where I come from, "autocrat" and "dictator" are terms of oppobrium. Well, with certain exceptions[1]. :( > Also, this could classify licensors who unilaterally change the meaning of > words of phrasing in a normally-acceptable sofware license, such as > "permission to modify and distribute" != permission to distribute > modifications. I don't think we need the Dictator Test to dispose of that case. If the license doesn't give people the freedoms required by the DFSG, then it's a straight-up DFSG violation. As I understand, the purpose of our tests is to make it easier to discern when DFSG violations are taking place. I would hope that even those who are heavily critical of debian-legal could understand "no, you don't have permission to distribute modified copies" as a violation of DFSG 3. However, given recent events and incendiary rhetoric on the -vote list, I'm not sure my hope is all that well-founded. :( [1] "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." -- George W. Bush, 2000-12-18, http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html -- G. Branden Robinson|Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny Debian GNU/Linux |that reading it will cause an [EMAIL PROTECTED] |aneurysm. This is not that .sig. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
Reaction to my earlier proposal[1] appears to be basically positive. Not everyone thought I picked the best name for it, though. Nevertheless, I'd like to move forward, and propose the addition of the following to the DFSG FAQ[2]. The Dictator Test: A licence is not Free if it prohibits actions which, in the absence of acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by copyright or other applicable laws. License grantors do not have a private right of legislation; that is, they are not dictators who can subject you to their personal jurisdiction through a license. If anyone has an objection, please speak up ASAP. It should be noted that this test is the work of Matthew Palmer and myself. [1] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00242.html [2] http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DebianFreeSoftwareGuidelinesDraftFAQ -- G. Branden Robinson|I am sorry, but what you have Debian GNU/Linux |mistaken for malicious intent is [EMAIL PROTECTED] |nothing more than sheer http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |incompetence! -- J. L. Rizzo II signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How aggressively should non-distributability bugs be dealt with?
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:00:36AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > I'm also not in favor of this tacit "assume we aren't violating the > intent of the license when we're clearly violating the letter of it, > unless we find out otherwise" precedent that's being set by this; we > didn't accept it for KDE, so why is it okay for the kernel? Because some folks have to have someone else to blame for their own ignorance. -- G. Branden Robinson|Half of being smart is knowing what Debian GNU/Linux |you're dumb at. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- David Gerrold http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?
[I am not subscribed to debian-kernel.]
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 11:00:55AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> > It's a unilateral license. It can't mean anything but what he intends
> > it to mean.
>
> Reference, please? That is Alice in Wonderland logic ("Words mean
> exactly what I want them to mean, neither more nor less."). I hope
> that a license means what is written.
Welcome to the Wonderland that is copyright law.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/08/msg00147.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/09/msg1.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/09/msg00013.html
To date, no one appears to have had the courage to challenge the University
of Washington's interpretation of "copy, modifify, and distribute" in court
(by subjecting themselves to a civil or criminal copyright infringement
suit). UWash later changed the wording of the license in question.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Do not attempt to disprove the
Debian GNU/Linux | four-colour theorem on your flag!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Josh Parsons
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Visualboy Advance question.
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 06:47:53PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 18:17, Benjamin Cutler wrote: > > > Perhaps my choice of words was poor, but I think that emulators fall > > into their own class of software because they rely on what is generally > > commercial, non-free (and honestly, quite probably illegal) software in > > order to run, which is why they fall into contrib. > > I guess I'm just not sure I buy that an emulator is materially different > from a script interpreter, DFSG-wise. > > A quick 'apt-cache search emulator' turns up quite a few emulators in > main. I can find a few that don't have supported programs in main -- > mixal would be one. B-) I put xtrs in contrib because without the ROM (or a DFSG-free OS for the TRS-80 Model 4P, which doesn't exist or at the very least isn't packaged), the only thing it will do is display an error message that no ROM was found. My thinking is that we need to not be pulling any bait-and-switches on our users. If I were to "apt-get install xtrs" from main, I'd expect it to do something more than throw up an error message. In summary, the decision to put emulators that are largely or completely inoperable without supplementary materials (from non-free, or not provided by Debian at all), is not wholly compelled by the "100% Free Software" portion of the Social Contract. It's also motivated by the "We will be guided by the needs of our users" part. -- G. Branden Robinson|Men use thought only to justify Debian GNU/Linux |their wrong doings, and speech only [EMAIL PROTECTED] |to conceal their thoughts. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Voltaire signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Visualboy Advance question.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 09:50:53AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote: > That's all well and good, but obviously somebody (presumably somebody > important) somewhere disagrees, or it wouldn't have happened in the first > place. I myself don't really give a rip either way where the emulators end > up, I'm just pretty sure that my explanation summarizes the supposed > reasons behind it. What could be helpful is to find the first such emulator > that ended up in contrib and see if there was any discussion on the debian > lists prior to its inclusion in the archive. Programs don't get dumped in > contrib for no reason, and I admit the reasons emulators were in contrib > were not obvious to me at first (and I'm still not even sure I have it > right). I'm willing to bet there was some discussion on this years ago and > we just need to dig it out. I just don't really know where to start looking. When I was but an egg in the Debian Project, back in early 1998, I *asked* where xtrs should go. The consensus back then was contrib. -- G. Branden Robinson| If God had intended for man to go Debian GNU/Linux | about naked, we would have been [EMAIL PROTECTED] | born that way. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Visualboy Advance question.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 03:30:18PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > Hmm. I wonder if other emulators have the same problems as the atari800 > emulator. From the description: > > "The Atari Operating System ROMs are not available with this package, > due to copyright. You'll have to either make copies of them from an > old Atari computer, or see README.Debian for other ways to obtain > them." > > I'd say that this was a valid reason to put atari800 into contrib. My > understanding is that this emulator *just won't work* without these > ROMs. No matter what "data" ROM you want to run, you need the OS ROMs to > do so. This describes the situation with xtrs (almost) perfectly[1]. > I know it may be a fine point, but I'd contrast that with an emulator > that is free and self-sufficient, but for which there is no DFSG-free > software to run. A *lot* of old home computer emulators won't be self-sufficient without the ROM, because the environments were so constrained that ROM-based service routines were very heavily used. [1] The exception being Model 4 operating systems, which were written to be far more independent of the BASIC ROM. In the case of the 4P, the BASIC ROM was not even loaded into RAM. -- G. Branden Robinson|If you make people think they're Debian GNU/Linux |thinking, they'll love you; but if [EMAIL PROTECTED] |you really make them think, they'll http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |hate you.-- Don Marquis signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Visualboy Advance question.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 06:36:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > I think that DFSG-free emulators should be in main as long as they don't > *depend* on non-free packages. Usefulness is, IMHO, a completely > different matter. I don't think we should be putting useless software in our archive, let alone in main. -- G. Branden Robinson| Measure with micrometer, Debian GNU/Linux | mark with chalk, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | cut with axe, http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hope like hell. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Visualboy Advance question.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 08:03:29PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > Lastly, I guess there's just something really violating about thinking > that Debian is judging the data I have, or could have, on my hard drive. > So I'm not working with Free data. So what? Mind your own beeswax, > Debian. If you wouldn't put words in Debian's mouth, maybe you wouldn't have to feel that way. -- G. Branden Robinson| Why should I allow that same God Debian GNU/Linux | to tell me how to raise my kids, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | who had to drown His own? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Green Ingersoll signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Visualboy Advance question.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 11:02:39PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:22:12 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > 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"). > > This is what I call the "anti-screwdriver claim": following this line of > reasoning you could argue that a screwdriver is illegal, because it can > be used for illegal purposes (e.g. killing someone by thrusting the > screwdriver in his/her throat). Funny how that should spring to mind in reply to a paragraph about Nintendo's lawyers. Can't imagine why. :) -- G. Branden Robinson|If you make people think they're Debian GNU/Linux |thinking, they'll love you; but if [EMAIL PROTECTED] |you really make them think, they'll http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |hate you.-- Don Marquis signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cc65 licensing
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 07:48:45PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Dear subset of debian-legal contributors, > > Please try to be a bit more constructive when working with upstream > developers. Michael Poole is not a Debian Developer. I'm prepared to draft and use a "debian-legal repudiation message" that we can use to disclaim the words of...overzealous...users, if necessary. If a Debian Developer gets too rude with an outside party, we have other methods at our disposal. -- G. Branden Robinson| If atheism is a religion, then Debian GNU/Linux | health is a disease. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Clark Adams http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: historical question about fceu in contrib
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 06:20:13PM -0400, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:27:05PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> >
> > It seems kind of strange to me and some other debian-legal people that a
> > package was kept out of main because the data files it uses are
> > non-free. Even for emulators and interpreters, this is kind of unusual.
>
> Really?! So you mean I didn't have to go to all that trouble... It
> made reasonable sense to me at the time (see below) and both my sponsor
> and AM seemed to agree with me. Ah well, at least I discovered an
> interesting game in the process.
Evan was fishing for support for his position in a recent thread entitled
"Visualboy Advance question."[1]. "Some other debian-legal people" appears to
refer to Humberto Massa, in one message.[2]
Evan did at one point moderate his thinking a bit[3].
[1] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00459.html
[2] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00614.html
[3] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00480.html
--
G. Branden Robinson| You are not angry with people when
Debian GNU/Linux | you laugh at them. Humor teaches
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | them tolerance.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- W. Somerset Maugham
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: Licence for Icons]
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:55:44AM +, Stefan Völkel wrote: > Hello, > > I was told to post my question on d-legal, please CC me as I am not > subscribed. I'm sorry no one has replied to you before now. I suspect one reason may have been that your questions are a bit confusing. > > is there a licence for icons? This is confusing question #1. In theory, any license can be attached to an icon. Some licenses will be more appropriate than others. If you're asking if there's some "Free Icon License" that the debian-legal pundits generally endorse, the answer to that is "no". (At least, I'm not aware of any such thing, and I follow the list pretty closely.) > > I'd like to include an extra icon in one of my packages (revelation). I > > asked the creator if it would be ok to include the icon. I think he is > > afraid that his Icon will be GPL'ed too (his answer was not that clear). > > > > I don't know exactly what he is afraid of, but is there some official Debian > > document I could send him? This is confusing question #2. The most official Debian document on the subject of licensing is the Debian Free Software Guidelines[1]. I have some questions for you that may help us to give you better advice. A) What is the icon you'd like to include? B) Who created the icon? C) Is there already a license on the icon? D) What is the license on the "relevation" package? Please attach the package's debian/copyright file to your reply. I should point out that the only person who can apply a license to a work is the copyright holder. If the icon's creator is the sole author of the work, and he or she doesn't apply the GNU GPL to the icon, then the GNU GPL does not and will not apply to it. It *is* possible that the icon can be licensed such that someone *else* can modify it and *then* apply the GNU GPL to the modified version. [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines -- G. Branden Robinson| To stay young requires unceasing Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | unlearn old falsehoods. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary Update: MPL inconclusive, clarifications needed
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:32:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > I just got a cc of questions sent by a Mozilla rep to the relevant > person. More news later, hopefully. I'm still catching up on the list, so I may have missed your followup to this (though there was none to this message)... Has there been any progress on this? -- G. Branden Robinson| "There is no gravity in space." Debian GNU/Linux | "Then how could astronauts walk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | around on the Moon?" http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | "Because they wore heavy boots." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 10:17:01PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:09:25 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote: > > > See also section 12e of the DFSG FAQ at > > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html > > Ah, I forgot that answer in the DFSG-FAQ... > So my interpretation of DFSG#5 was too extremist: I apologize for the > confusion. And as you noted, we can't stop, for example, GPL license users from extending the MIT/X11 license to people through negotations we're not privy to. We should set a better example than those who overreach with their licenses and attempt to prohibit actions with no foundation for prohibition in copyright law. We should not attempt to enforce that which we *can't* enforce. -- G. Branden Robinson| Notions like Marxism and Debian GNU/Linux | Freudianism belong to the history [EMAIL PROTECTED] | of organized religion. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Noam Chomsky signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 08:07:22AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > Any law or > > regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be > > construed against the drafter will not apply to this License. > What the heck does this do? I don't like the look of it. It's malevolent as hell, to say nothing of arrogant. It basically says "any protections which You (You being 'not the drafter') may have under any laws or regulations regarding the language of contracts are hereby null and void". I get the feeling judges and legislators won't take kindly to being told that their laws which apply to contracts don't apply to Apple's contracts. Those whom haven't already been bought by Apple, anyway. (Assuming this is a contract, which isn't apropos for a copyright license anyway.) -- G. Branden Robinson|Fair use is irrelevant and Debian GNU/Linux |improper. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Asst. U.S. Attorney Scott http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |Frewing, explaining the DMCA signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: scummvm dependent games: non-free?
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 07:40:44AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> This is basically a trick of wording. If the license lets you ship it with
> the one-character shell script containing the letter 'w' and charge for
> that, then that's good enough.
I continue to assert that this exception is moronic.
It makes a mockery of our defense of software freedom.
I have not yet heard of an application of this loophole that wasn't
motivated my malevolent intent ("We want to fuck over competitor Q who
otherwise would be able to easily distribute our software.").
--
G. Branden Robinson| Suffer before God and ye shall be
Debian GNU/Linux | redeemed. God loves us, so He
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | makes us suffer Christianity.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Aaron Dunsmore
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Free Linux Kernel
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 09:02:40AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 21:34, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > I had been working on cleansing it, but have gotten depressed by the hostile > > response from some of the Debian kernel maintainers and the dead silence > > from upstream. > > >From memory, there's someone on lkml who has a "list" of the non-free > bits of the kernel. If you post and ask, you might get a response. > > And be assured - there is a silent (perhaps even majority) waiting in > the wings who will solidly support such efforts/ results. Please don't use "silent majority" arguments. By definition we don't know the opinions of people who haven't shared those opinions with us. If people don't have the backbone to stand up to the assertion that the Linux kernel is merely an anthology of C source files, then this sort of cravenness is something for which they need to be held to account. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Ignorantia judicis est calamitas [EMAIL PROTECTED] | innocentis. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 07:26:28AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > > You should provide a more significant objection than "your modifications > > > have value". > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 04:26:59AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I don't think it's an "insigificant" objection. > > I do. > > The license prohibits any redistribution at all, and instead of focussing > on that, Why shouldn't we present license analyses that are as comprehensive as we can make them? Do you think it's a good idea to get involved in a series of cycles with people? "Thanks for fixing that. Here's the next problem. Thanks for fixing that. Here's the next problem. Thanks for fixing that. Here's the next problem. Thanks for fixing that. Here's the next problem." This sort of situation is very likely to lead people to feel we're performing some sort of bait-and-switch with them. Fundamentally, either they care about Debian's guidelines and about their works being in Debian main, or they don't. I see no reason not to be fully candid, and air all of our concerns with a given license at once. Does it do anyone any good if they budge on one non-DFSG-compliant point but leave another one in the license because "that's going too far"? Wouldn't our investment of time be better spent working with other licensors who are willing to use DFSG-free licenses? To anticipate one of your objections, I think what makes things slow is the cycle and the go-round, not the analysis process itself. As evidence I submit the LPPL and GFDL discussions. > you are pushing a line of logic that seems to make the GPL > non-free. Eh? What's with this scare-mongering, slippery-slope argument? You either do not understand my objection (this calling into your question your dismissal of it as "insignificant"), or you are deliberately misrepresenting it. I hope it's the former, because this objection seems a total non-sequitur to me. > > > "Distribution of source", as required by the GPL, has value, so your > > > logic would this mean that the GPL is non-free. > > > > No, because modification is not distribution, and I cannot copyright my act > > of distribution[1]. > > You can't copyright gold, either. I would agree that it is important that licensors not reach for more than they can grasp when drafting their licenses. (If that's not what you're trying to say, perhaps you could eludicate.) -- G. Branden Robinson|It's extremely difficult to govern Debian GNU/Linux |when you control all three branches [EMAIL PROTECTED] |of government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- John Feehery signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 09:24:50AM +0100, Andrew Stribblehill wrote: > Jesse, the upstream developer of RT3 assures me that they have no > intention of stealing the copyright on code that hasn't been > intentionally given to them for the purpose of inclusion in RT. He's > in consultation with Best Practical's lawyers about how best to > re-word it to reflect their intentions. > > Regarding the concept of taking the copyright of code: it's what the > FSF have been doing since 1992 with Emacs. The difference here is > that if you feel strongly about it, you get to keep your copyright. I do not find that difference insignificant. In any event, as many others have pointed out, a transfer of copyright might not be valid without a physical, written instrument signed by both parties. So, again, we may have a license that is *trying* to do more than it reasonably *can* do under the law, quite apart from whether its intentions are DFSG-free or not. -- G. Branden Robinson| You live and learn. Debian GNU/Linux | Or you don't live long. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 08:35:09PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> It seems to me that the more likely outcome in this event would be a
> conclusion either that the license is altogether invalid, or that anyone
> having made modifications to RT3 has failed to comply with the license,
> resulting in a finding that anyone making modifications is infringing Best
> Practical's copyright.
It's worth noting that both of these outcomes are not just non-DFSG-free
(which isn't a big deal to some folks), but in the former case would make
the work undistributable even in non-free ("no license" means "no license to
redistribute freely"), and in the latter case might render the work too
crippled to distribute in non-free according to our current practices.
(I'm familiar with packages in non-free that prohibit redistribution for
commercial purposes -- I'm not aware of any that prohibit modification
altogether. The latter would make it challenging to fix bugs.)
--
G. Branden Robinson|Religion consists in a set of
Debian GNU/Linux |things which the average man thinks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |he believes and wishes he was
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |certain of. -- Mark Twain
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: PROPOSED: the Dictator Test
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 01:40:57AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > I guess if a licence agreement requires one of those to be formed, > then either someone who understands those systems explains why it > would not follow the guidelines, or Branden's proposed test needs > limiting to licenses permitting application under > contract-based/common-law jurisdiction. I don't have a problem with the latter. I don't mind deferring the Dictator Test's application to civil-law jursdictions until we can figure out whether it is a meaningful test under that regime, and if so, how it might make sense to apply it differently. -- G. Branden Robinson|I've made up my mind. Don't try to Debian GNU/Linux |confuse me with the facts. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Indiana Senator Earl Landgrebe http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: xinetd license possibly violates DFSG #4
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 06:15:10PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > I think I'll probably end up agreeing with you if I consider this long > enough. However it would make things much simpler if you could think > of a case where this limitation would affect our users' freedom in > some important way. If people do only what we expect them to do, they don't need freedom. Or, more cynically, we can tell them they *have* freedom, when they don't, really, because they never leave the little boxes we've placed them in. > For example, how is this different than requiring that the software > say it is based on xinetd version x.y.z? It's different on its face. What's unreasonable about declaring that the software is based on xinetd version x.y.z? Anything? Then why isn't that sufficient under the xinetd license? > does this license require me to keep printing the version number? It doesn't appear to. Is that good or bad thing from a licensing standpoint? Does this license prohibit removal of version numbers altogether? You tell me. Do we say the "pet a cat" license[1] is DFSG-free because it's too hard for the copyright holder to verify compliance? > Are there any cases where the version number could become part of an API > and I'd be unable to be compatible with some future version of xinetd > because I cannot change the version number? The license does not restrict itself to human-interpreted-only version numbers, so I guess not. > Would this license get in the way if I wanted to take parts of xinetd and > use them in other projects? It doesn't seem to consider that possibility. Is it DFSG-free to prohibit code reuse in other projects? [1] http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html -- G. Branden Robinson|It's extremely difficult to govern Debian GNU/Linux |when you control all three branches [EMAIL PROTECTED] |of government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- John Feehery signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Visualboy Advance question.
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 01:16:42PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > Branden Robinson wrote: > > >>I know it may be a fine point, but I'd contrast that with an emulator > >>that is free and self-sufficient, but for which there is no DFSG-free > >>software to run. > >> > >> > > > >A *lot* of old home computer emulators won't be self-sufficient without the > >ROM, because the environments were so constrained that ROM-based service > >routines were very heavily used. > > That's interesting and true. But "a lot" is not "all". I think in the > case under discussion, an OS system ROM isn't necessary to run the > software. You just need particular game ROMs. Do we expect the typical user of the emulator to already have game ROMs on hand? If so, by what means? -- G. Branden Robinson| A fundamentalist is someone who Debian GNU/Linux | hates sin more than he loves [EMAIL PROTECTED] | virtue. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John H. Schaar signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Visualboy Advance question.
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 12:10:59PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > Francesco Poli wrote: > > >On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:00:47 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > >>I think there's a fairly significant difference between an emulator > >>that will load and display an "insert ROM" image (eg. NES, SNES), and > >>one that requires a specific non-free image in order to be able to do > >>anything at all (eg. PSX BIOS images). > >> > >>The first is analogous to requiring media; you see what the console > >>displays if a cartridge isn't inserted. The second is the same as > >>requiring a non-free library for which there is no free replacement. > >>(I'm not aware of any free replacement PSX BIOSes.) > > > >Agreed, fully. > > > I'd agree with that, too. Very succintly put. Sounds like a good litmus test to me. I likes me my bright-line tests. -- G. Branden Robinson|Kissing girls is a goodness. It is Debian GNU/Linux |a growing closer. It beats the [EMAIL PROTECTED] |hell out of card games. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Robert Heinlein signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: historical question about fceu in contrib
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 11:31:13AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > To be clear: I was soliciting information, not hustling for votes. [...] > It's probably not a good idea to take every discussion on debian-legal as > an argument. Sorry; the list gets so contentious sometimes that I guess I see bare-knuckled argumentation even in the rare cases where it's not present. :) My apologies. -- G. Branden Robinson| One man's "magic" is another man's Debian GNU/Linux | engineering. "Supernatural" is a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | null word. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL violation in shadow? (was: Re: Bug#244297: Still in license violation. (was: Re: Bug#244297 acknowledged by developer (Bug#244297: fixed in shadow 1:4.0.3-29)))
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:51:37PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > This seems like a GPL violation. I disagree, and concur with Andreas Metzler's and Glenn Maynard's reasoning. I believe you are misinterpreting clause 2b) of the GNU GPL. b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. This does not mean that the license on any independent copyrighted material changes; it means that as long as that independent material "contains" or "is derived from" code under the GNU GPL, that it must accompany that GPLed code. Any such "contamination" by the GNU GPL is easily removed by detaching the GNU GPL-licensed portions from the work. If they are truly independent, this should be very easy. There is no "lingering taint" of the GNU GPL. The only license that is on the independent work is that which was placed on it originally. If it's any consolation, this is a very common misconception, and one that has been rampant on, e.g., the XFree86 mailing lists for years. -- G. Branden Robinson| "To be is to do" -- Plato Debian GNU/Linux | "To do is to be" -- Aristotle [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Do be do be do" -- Sinatra http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Copyright on 'non-creative' data?
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 03:52:15PM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote: > Also, note that at least Australia and England extend copyright protection > to "industrious collections" (i.e., 'sweat of the brow' databases such as > white pages). Has anyone bothered to copyright large prime numbers discovered by computers? How about long checksums, laboriously calculated? /me cannot wait for the first copyright infringment via hash collision court case -- G. Branden Robinson| The only way to get rid of a Debian GNU/Linux | temptation is to yield to it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Oscar Wilde http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 01:25:12PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-07-07 11:04:33 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >The Dictator Test: [...] > >If anyone has an objection, please speak up ASAP. > > Please connect this to specific DFSG if possible. Of course, the FAQ > notes that not everything failing a common test is necessarily not > free, so I don't see a problem in adding it there. Er, well, whether and how it fails a clause of the DFSG depends on exactly what type of private legislation the Dictator attempts to enforce. Since copyright generally covers distribution, I would expect most failures of the Dictator Test to violate DFSG 1. Does that help any? -- G. Branden Robinson|Humor is a rubber sword - it allows Debian GNU/Linux |you to make a point without drawing [EMAIL PROTECTED] |blood. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Mary Hirsch signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 01:51:34PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > Not really an objection, but for completeness I think some practical examples > of things which fail this test should be added to the FAQ as well. I'll try and think of some. -- G. Branden Robinson|Lowery's Law: Debian GNU/Linux |If it jams -- force it. If it [EMAIL PROTECTED] |breaks, it needed replacing anyway. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GUADEC report
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:31:34PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > This smacks of arrogance. Most -legal participants aren't lawyers, and as > such have no formal training in actual legal matters. Believe it or not, > such training does count for something. The point should be to cooperate > with these people and have actual discussions, not beat them about the > head and shoulders with ideology that they probably don't understand. > This is the sort of thing that Matthew is reporting about, and it's also > the reason for the recent backlash against -legal from within Debian > itself. On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 09:41:27PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:31:34 -0400, David Nusinow > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > You said that better than I would have, if I had fallen to my > temptation to reply to Thaddeus. I agree 100%, and with perhaps more > emotion. > > I do have a question on an individual package-by-package basis, > who does have final say as to whether or not it follows the DFSG? The > developer who packages it? The Release Manager? Upstream? On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 07:44:38PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:31:34PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: [...] > Well put. I couldn't agree more. Well, while you're all vigorously agreeing with each other, it would be nice if you guys would cite actual examples of debian-legal people "beating upstreams about the head and shoulders with ideology". As a subscriber to -legal for years now, my experience is quite different. On many occasions, upstream licensors have thanked us for working with them to come up with a better license. There are even *recent* examples[1][2] of this. The most frequent and bitter acrimony on (and about) -legal seems to come not from upstream developers, but from Debian package maintainers who can't articulate why a license is DFSG-free beyond "because I said so!". In many cases, this comes not from the maintainer of a package whose license is being studied, but from some third party Debian developer who seems enraged that questions are even being asked.[3] [1] "Special thanks to all those people from Debian Legal who worked constructively with us on this onerous task [...]" http://www.latex-project.org/ltnews/ltnews15.pdf [2] "Thank you for your help, Remco." Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00040.html [3] http://blog.bofh.it/id_42 http://blog.bofh.it/id_40 http://blog.bofh.it/id_38 http://blog.bofh.it/id_37 -- G. Branden Robinson| The National Security Agency is Debian GNU/Linux | working on the Fourth Amendment [EMAIL PROTECTED] | thing. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Phil Lago, Deputy XD, CIA signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
Forwarding with permission of author, who accidentally replied privately. - Forwarded message from Juergen Weigert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Juergen Weigert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:05:05 +0200 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_01 autolearn=ham version=2.63 On Jul 07, 04 05:04:33 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > The Dictator Test: > > A licence is not Free if it prohibits actions which, in the absence of > acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by copyright or other > applicable laws. > > License grantors do not have a private right of legislation; that is, > they are not dictators who can subject you to their personal jurisdiction > through a license. > > If anyone has an objection, please speak up ASAP. Hmmm, may bite back, if law is more permissive than we expected? For illustration, let me invent the Country of Sillyness. There copyright law generally permits software vendors to keep the origin of code as a secret. (even if it is obvious that GPLed code was used.) Now, the GPL says that source code must be disclosed. Would that put the title 'Dictator' on RMS? cheers, Jw. -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green!__/ _===.===_ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] linux software/_---|\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 creator __/ (//\ (/) | _/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 - End forwarded message - -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | If ignorance is bliss, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | is omniscience hell? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Blast from the Past: the LaTeX Project Public License, version 1.3
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:04:51AM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote: > Thomas has delivered out 2.0.2 with 1.2 and I'm not sure if it makes > sense to put just in 1.3 and hope that every package declares a dep > on 1.2 or later(!). [...] > Exactly. Thomas continues releasing beta releases for the upcoming > teTeX 3.0 since beginning of February. At this time we thought it > will take just a few month, but... For some reasons we won't upload > to unstable but rather to experimental as soon as it is released. > > > I am therefore not sure Debian is shipping anything under the new > > license yet. > > > No, we're releasing with 1.2. Hmmm. I don't suppose it's a *huge* deal, but do you think we could ask upstream to apply the new LPPL to the existing codebase? This doesn't require anything more than an email on their part, which we could then stick in debian/copyright. -- G. Branden Robinson| Intellectual property is neither Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual nor property. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Discuss. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Linda Richman signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: "remove this package from another developer" (was: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.)
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final > decision lies with the archive maintainers. I see. Where are the archive maintainers' official delegations? -- G. Branden Robinson| The greatest productive force is Debian GNU/Linux | human selfishness. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Blast from the Past: the LaTeX Project Public License, version 1.3
[I am not subscribed to debian-tetex-maint.] On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 02:38:20PM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote: > On 11.07.04 Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Hmmm. I don't suppose it's a *huge* deal, but do you think we > > could ask upstream to apply the new LPPL to the existing codebase? > > This doesn't require anything more than an email on their part, > > which we could then stick in debian/copyright. > > > Well, our upstream is TE. Most of the code is not written by him, so > he doesn't really have control over these things. Take e.g. > KOMA-Script: the package is explicitely linked with LPPL 1.0. If you > ask Markus Kohm, he'll refuse to upgrade to the next version (at > least I read some postings about this by him in dctt). Well we could > put 1.3 into teTeX 2.0.2 and hope, that most of the problems will be > resolved then... Er, well...it doesn't really help the package's DFSG problems if the DFSG-free version of the license isn't actually used. Also, is it the new version of the LPPL Markus Kohm doesn't want to upgrade to, or the new version of some software? I think it was established during the long, long discussions on -legal that previous versions of the LPPL were not DFSG-free. I'm open to suggestions for how we should cope with this. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Music is the brandy of the damned. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- George Bernard Shaw http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 07:40:39PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > > The license prohibits any redistribution at all, and instead of focussing > > > on that, > > On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:37:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Why shouldn't we present license analyses that are as comprehensive as we > > can make them? > > Because potential complexity of the boundaries is infinite. That's true of most real-world decision problems. > Also, hammering minor point after minor point while missing the main > point is argumentative and of little value. I see; what sort of DFSG violations do you consider "minor"? > It's ok to say: here's the big problem, and here's some other areas of > concern that you might want to think about. > > It's misleading to say "this is a problem" when we accept licenses as > DFSG even though they have "this problem". Which licenses do we accept as DFSG-free even though they have "this problem"? Please be careful about putting words in my mouth. > In this case, we're talking about a license which is intended to be GPL > compatible. Given that the GPL already satisfies the DFSG, all we need > to do for these folks is point out the areas where they're not GPL > compatible. > > We might want to add a note -- that if they give up on the GPL > compatability issue that might raise other issues. But I wouldn't go any > farther than that. I don't think we should be anymore GPL-partisan than we have to be. The GNU GPL is often a good choice for a license, but we are not an organ of the Free Software Foundation, and DFSG-freeness is not predicated on GPL-compatibility. At least, not as the DFSG is currently written. You could propose that GPL-compatibility be a DFSG criterion. It might pass. > > > you are pushing a line of logic that seems to make the GPL > > > non-free. > > > > Eh? What's with this scare-mongering, slippery-slope argument? > > It's the literal truth. You've advanced a claim that "if the license > requires something of value, the license cannot satisfy the DFSG". And, > the GPL requires something of value. You have elided "in exchange for rights under the license". One you undertake actions regulated by copyright law, something that would otherwise be yours becomes the property of Best Practical LLC. This is not a characteristic of the GNU GPL. The GNU GPL *does* require that you transmit something of value -- or an offer to do so -- alongside *other* things of value when you distribute them to another party. Best Practical's license has an invisible hand that reaches into your life from afar and asserts property claims over something that would otherwise be yours. This, to me is an essential and important distinction. Perhaps you don't agree. > > You either do not understand my objection (this calling into your question > > your dismissal of it as "insignificant"), or you are deliberately > > misrepresenting it. > > I prefer to think that you've expressed your concept unclearly. If I haven't expressed myself clearly, then it's quite likely you don't understand me, no? > By the way, my objection was to what you said, not to what you thought. I am not sure how this statement adds information to this discussion. > > > > > "Distribution of source", as required by the GPL, has value, so your > > > > > logic would this mean that the GPL is non-free. > > > > > > > > No, because modification is not distribution, and I cannot copyright my > > > > act > > > > of distribution[1]. > > > > > > You can't copyright gold, either. > > > > I would agree that it is important that licensors not reach for more than > > they can grasp when drafting their licenses. > > > > (If that's not what you're trying to say, perhaps you could eludicate.) > > You seemed to be claiming that distribution has no value because > distribution can't be copyrighted. You're quite incorrect as regards my claims. I take it as a given that distribution has "value", because engaging in it is a practice that copyright law regulates. Does it make sense to obtain a license for something that is valueless? Free copyright licenses grant license to distribute. That they do so doesn't not mean that can *compel* distribution arbitrarily, however. Would we accept as DFSG-free a sort of chain-letter license which compelled the licensee, immediately upon obtaining a copy of the work, to distribute further copies to twenty different acquantainces of his? > [But gold can't be copyr
Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:57:40PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > I think Steve's guess at likely interpretations isincorrect but have > very low confidence in my opinion. We're all entitled to our opinions. :) > It seems like the best course of action at this point is to try and seek > clarification of the license. I think we all agree that if what Best > Practical is trying to do is to gain ownership of patches submitted by > their rightful owners for inclusion in the product that doing so is DFSG > free if possible. This process is, and has been, underway. I don't see why that should stop us from exploring the ramfications of clauses like the one in question, what we think of them, and where we (Debian developers) disagree with each other as to what is and is not DFSG-free. -- G. Branden Robinson|Any man who does not realize that Debian GNU/Linux |he is half an animal is only half a [EMAIL PROTECTED] |man. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Thornton Wilder signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: xinetd license possibly violates DFSG #4
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 07:12:25PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:59:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > It doesn't seem to consider that possibility. Is it DFSG-free to prohibit > > code reuse in other projects? [...] > Patch clauses are at least one case in which prohibiting code reuse entirely > is allowed--even in projects using permissive licenses, or projects using the > same license. Hmmm. I'm not sure blanket acceptance of "closed-universe" projects is really a good idea. I'm not sure it serves our users very well, and I'm pretty confident it doesn't serve the Free Software community very well. At the same time, I'm struggling to determine an essential distinction between a single de-facto closed-universe project, and a vast collection of such projects (which all works licensed under the GNU GPL could be said to be). > I don't think "if you reuse this code, you must use this versioning scheme" > is acceptable. I agree. -- G. Branden Robinson| What cause deserves following if Debian GNU/Linux | its adherents must bury their [EMAIL PROTECTED] | opposition with lies? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Noel O'Connor signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Visualboy Advance question.
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 10:07:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > I don't think that the basis for a package's inclusion in main should be the > packaging in main of appropriate content. The Debian Policy says something pretty close to that, in my view. 2.2.1 The main section Every package in main and non-US/main must comply with the DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines). In addition, the packages in main * must not require a package outside of main for compilation or execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main package), * must not be so buggy that we refuse to support them, and * must meet all policy requirements presented in this manual. Similarly, the packages in non-US/main * must not require a package outside of main or non-US/main for compilation or execution, * must not be so buggy that we refuse to support them, * must meet all policy requirements presented in this manual. OTOH, as you're sure to note, an easy way around this is that a package can be completely useless in main as long as what it depends on isn't a package. Maybe that *was* your point. > That would be a waste of archive resources. Er, before heading down this road, I think you should attempt an objective demonstration that we seem to give a damn about wasting archive resources in the first place. -- G. Branden Robinson|Optimists believe we live in the Debian GNU/Linux |best of all possible worlds. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Pessimists fear that this really is http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |the best of all possible worlds. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Visualboy Advance question.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 01:22:10PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Glenn Maynard wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:15:41AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > > The "quake2" and "lxdoom" packages are in contrib, due to lack of free > > > > data > > > > sets. This is long and strongly established, I believe. > > > > > > Lack of free data sets period, or lack of free data sets in the archive? > > > > I think if there was a presentable free data set for either, it would have > > been packaged, if only to get these out of contrib. > > There is a free[1] doom WAD, see bug #206139. Why noone has packaged it, > I don't know. According to the bug logs, as of about a month ago Moritz Muehlenhoff announced his intent to package it. -- G. Branden Robinson| Why should I allow that same God Debian GNU/Linux | to tell me how to raise my kids, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | who had to drown His own? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Green Ingersoll signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Visualboy Advance question.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 12:22:36AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Branden Robinson wrote: > >Do we expect the typical user of the emulator to already have game > >ROMs on hand? If so, by what means? > > Do you really want to know and control the means, by which > debian users will get the ROMs? > > More specifically, do you really think that [futile] > attempts to control and police sources of _input_ _data_, on which > debian users will run the program, is compatible with terms and > principles of Free Software? I think you're jumping to conclusions. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | "Bother," said Pooh, as he was [EMAIL PROTECTED] | assimilated by the Borg. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
questions for the Apache Software Foundation [was: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?]
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:34:16AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Josh Triplett wrote: > > Now, quoting from the Apache license, version 1.1: > >> 4. The names "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must > >>not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this > >>software without prior written permission. For written > >>permission, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > We've allowed this grudgingly, I guess; perhaps because "us[ing the names] > to endorse or promote" is a rather minimal category of things, normally > restricted under trademark law anyway, and only relating to advertising. > > I do not consider it necessarily DFSG-free, however, as it may prohibit > statements in advertising like "Apache-compatible", which are permitted by > trademark law. We really should contact the ASF and *ask* them if they intend this prohibition to go beyond trademark law and right of publicity. CCing [EMAIL PROTECTED] for this purpose. > >> 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. > > This is certainly not DFSG-free and never has been. It's a major reason why > we got this changed in the Apache license 2.0. *sigh* Furthermore, Debian > is currently in violation of this clause, as is nearly every distributor. > This is more honored in the breach than in the observance. Heh. Since ASL 2.0 has changed this, maybe we can ask the ASF to grant a blanket waiver of this clause (much as UCB did with clause 4 of the BSD license[1])? > > This has the same restrictions as the above clause of the APSL. So if > > the Apache license, version 1.1, is considered DFSG-free, > Which it isn't. > > > then so should this clause of the APSL. I concur with this analysis. [1] ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change -- G. Branden Robinson| Religion is excellent stuff for Debian GNU/Linux | keeping common people quiet. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Napoleon Bonaparte http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CC-based proposal (was FDL: no news?)
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 09:11:08AM -0800, D. Starner wrote: > > Now, the whole idea of applying the same "freeness criteria" to what I > > call non-software content, looks like a complete nonsense to me, > > Can we give it up? We've had at least a year of discussion on this > subject, then a vote, then long flame-wars all over the place, then > another vote, since people were upset about the results of the first > vote. The two votes clearly indicate the will of the developers. The > decision has been made; can we bury what's left of the horse now? Why, particularly, should he deviate from the fine example set by Craig Sanders and other supporters of Proposal D? -- G. Branden Robinson| One man's "magic" is another man's Debian GNU/Linux | engineering. "Supernatural" is a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | null word. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein signature.asc Description: Digital signature
abiword: Debian appears to be violating AbiWord's license
Package: abiword Version: 2.0.7+cvs.2004.05.05-1 Severity: serious Please see the following mailing list discussion. On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 04:14:03PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>For example, "Abiword" is a trademarked name; Abisource requires that > >>modified versions of Abiword are either called "Abiword Personal", or > >>that they don't have "Abiword" in the name. This is a perfectly > >>reasonable application of a trademark to Free Software, and Debian > >>distributes of Abiword using the branding "Abiword Personal". > > > > Not as far as I can se: > > > > Description: WYSIWYG word processor based on GTK2/GNOME2 > > AbiWord is the first application of a complete, open source office > > suite. The upstream source includes cross-platform support for > > Win32, BeOS, and QNX as well as GTK+ on Unix. > > . > > This package contains the AbiWord binary built with GTK2/GNOME2. > > > > Neither the GNOME menu entry, the splash screen, the window title nor > > the about box mention "Personal" in any way. > > > >>From what I see at > > <http://www.abisource.com/information/license/personal.phtml> the source > > they distribute should automatically brand itself "AbiWord Personal", > > but the source only mentions "Personal build" (or anything resembling) > > in the Windows .nsi installer files. > > Interesting. I was almost certain that at one point Abiword was branded > "Abiword Personal" in Debian, and used the blue ant graphics rather than > the official graphics. However, checking again, I see that this is not > the case in either the stable or unstable versions. This is definitely > a violation of the Abiword license, and should be submitted as a serious > bugreport on the abiword package. Filed. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Extra territorium jus dicenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] | impune non paretur. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GUADEC report
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 02:32:24PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: > MJ Ray writes: > > As such, if a copyright permission condition is an "everything is > > forbidden except X" trademark enforcement term, then that contaminates > > other software. It doesn't matter that some other use might not infringe > > the trademark: it would mean we have no copyright permissions on the > > licensed software. > > Attempting to use a copyright license to extend trademark rights beyond the > statutory ones may be copyright misuse. That could lead to the abuser > losing his copyright, his trademark, or both. This is interesting. Do you have any references where I read more about it? -- G. Branden Robinson| No math genius, eh? Then perhaps Debian GNU/Linux | you could explain to me where you [EMAIL PROTECTED] | got these... PENROSE TILES! http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Stephen R. Notley signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GUADEC report
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 01:11:24PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > I dislike DDs who want this list to engage in a conspiracy of silence > and denial, never look at existing packages and so on. It helps me if > everyone who wants to understand these issues does. If we > misunderstand something, then I'd love us to be corrected, as then I > know more. The likes of Marco d'Itri are snipers, sitting in their > ivory towers and trying to improve the school by shooting at those > they think are failing, breeding fear and mistrust. I have much more > respect for people like Matthew Garrett, who actually help, even > though I don't completely agree with him. Agreed. Also, Matthew Garrett is quite the good sort of fellow, despite what my liver is sure to say about him in another 40 years. -- G. Branden Robinson| Life is what happens to you while Debian GNU/Linux | you're busy making other plans. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- John Lennon http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:32:30PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > I never meant to imply that debian-legal was actually doing this, since I > don't > have any examples (in no small part because I haven't gone looking for them) > but rather that the post I replied to was demonstrating the kind of arrogance > that debian-legal has been accused of. Sorry for being unclear. This isn't to > say this sort of arrogance doesn't go on in -legal, just that I don't know one > way or the other. In my experience, you can find generous helpings of arrogance on most Debian mailing lists. > The acrimony stimulated by the questioning of the mozilla license this > late in the sarge release process is no small matter. Getting rid of > Netscape was a major accomplishment, and to essentially move backwards by > kicking mozilla in to non-free is a scary thought, especially after we > have worked for so long to get sarge out the door. We're *still* working hard to get sarge out the door. With hundreds of RC bugs still open, the end does not appear to be in sight. In any case, the attitude that "kicking Mozilla to non-free is a scary thought" strikes me as ignorant and short-sighted. The Mozilla Project went open-source because they wanted to be part of the community, and our response is to elevate them to godhood by refusing to study and question their licensing decisions?The Open Source and Free Software communities are *all about* licensing, because by default in just about every country that matters we cannot freely change the software we use and share our improvements with our neighbor. By adopting a milquetoast approach we do the Mozilla Project no favors. How are they to be a part of the FLOSS community if we keep them outside it? Shall we look upon Mozilla as manna from heaven, or shall we expect them to engage in the same rough-and-tumble that the rest of us deal with on a daily basis? RMS had the privilege of seeing two of *his* babies[1] challenged to the point of forking. Why, then, should we treat AOL Time Warner with such delicacy that we dare not even offer them frank feedback on their choice of license? We do collectively understand that there are Free, full-featured graphical browsers *other* than Netscape, right? N.B., I'm not going to be very impressed with any argument along the lines of "better non-free than KDE". > Similar issues apply with the firmware and any other major piece of > software you might care to bring up (I can't think of any others off the > top of my head). Debian needs to release, and the GR vote reflects that > this opinion is shared amongst the majority of DD's. I think the idea of > questioning mozilla's license, among others, triggers the fear that we > will never release because of the constant wrangingling over freeness. > The fact that this sort of wrangling is done based on tests (Chinese > Dissident, etc) which few are aware of makes the situation worse. If you're saying debian-legal could do a lot better in the "internal project diplomacy" department, I entirely agree. IMO it would have helped if a Debian license arbitration body had been formally delegated by the DPL, but as we all know, that didn't happen. Permit me to sprinkle some Google juice. Want to know more about debian-legal and what it does? http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DFSGLicences http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html [1] GNU Emacs and GCC -- G. Branden Robinson|As people do better, they start Debian GNU/Linux |voting like Republicans -- unless [EMAIL PROTECTED] |they have too much education and http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |vote Democratic. -- Karl Rove signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:07:21PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Branden Robinson: > > > Reaction to my earlier proposal[1] appears to be basically positive. Not > > everyone thought I picked the best name for it, though. > > > > Nevertheless, I'd like to move forward, and propose the addition of the > > following to the DFSG FAQ[2]. > > > > The Dictator Test: > > > > A licence is not Free if it prohibits actions which, in the absence of > > acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by copyright or other > > applicable laws. > > What about warranty disclaimers? What do you propose is permitted under law before the corresponding copyright license is granted that is not permitted afterwards? In the United States, at least, I can't sue someone under product liability law if I don't own or have access to the product I claim is defective. In fact, as I understand it, I can't even be member of a class action on my behalf[1]. If an innocent bystander is harmed through the operation of defective Free Software, how can he or she be held to the warranty disclaimer, given that he or she never received the corresponding copyright license? > Or quite reasonable clauses dealing with patent issues? Well, that's a pretty vague question. What do you propose is permitted under law before the corresponding copyright license is granted that is not permitted afterwards? What right do you have to produce a patented invention in the *absence* of a license that has a "quite reasonable clause dealing with patent issues" in it? To fail the Dictator Test, a license has to take away liberties you enjoyed in the first place. [1] It's my understanding that places like Switzerland have no concept of class actions, so mind the jurisdiction. -- G. Branden Robinson|America is at that awkward stage. Debian GNU/Linux |It's too late to work within the [EMAIL PROTECTED] |system, but too early to shoot the http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |bastards. -- Claire Wolfe 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. Data point: I can't scare up the reference at the moment, but The XFree Project, Inc., asserted that the warranty disclaimer was a "condition" of the MIT/X11 license. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is fur- nished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FIT- NESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE X CONSORTIUM BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. -- G. Branden Robinson| If the jury can count higher than Debian GNU/Linux | two, the case will fail. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Tom Lane, on Forgent's claim of http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |a patent on JPEG signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:16:38AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > I don't think it's a magic spell that > > makes you imune from being sued. > Nope. I suppose this why some of the less-friendly licensors inject choice-of-law and choice-of-venue clauses into their licenses. It's a comfortable for of self-delusion. -- G. Branden Robinson|I just wanted to see what it looked Debian GNU/Linux |like in a spotlight. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Jim Morrison http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Hydra license is not DFSG-free
[debian-legal: please see http://bugs.debian.org/258057 >] It should also be noted that because this license is GPL-incompatible[1], any GNU GPL-licensed code in it, that is not copyrighted by van Hauser is being used in violation of the GNU GPL. That means we cannot distribute this package even in non-free. Under the Free Software Foundation's interpretation of the GNU GPL, this is also true if Hydra links against GNU GPL-licensed libraries. [1] Clauses 2, 3, and 4 of this license are "further restrictions" as described in GPL clause 6. 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions ^^^ on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not ^ responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. -- G. Branden Robinson| "There is no gravity in space." Debian GNU/Linux | "Then how could astronauts walk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | around on the Moon?" http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | "Because they wore heavy boots." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Hydra license is not DFSG-free
[self-followup] On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:10:49AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > [debian-legal: please see http://bugs.debian.org/258057 >] [...] > Under the Free Software Foundation's interpretation of the GNU GPL, this is > also true if Hydra links against GNU GPL-licensed libraries. I checked into this, and it doesn't appear to be the case. 516 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dlocate -L hydra /. /usr /usr/bin /usr/bin/hydra /usr/bin/pw-inspector /usr/share /usr/share/doc /usr/share/doc/hydra /usr/share/doc/hydra/LICENCE.HYDRA /usr/share/doc/hydra/copyright /usr/share/doc/hydra/changelog.gz /usr/share/doc/hydra/README.gz /usr/share/doc/hydra/changelog.Debian.gz 517 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ldd $(which hydra) libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x0ff6c000) libssl.so.0.9.7 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.0.9.7 (0x0ff1a000) libcrypto.so.0.9.7 => /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.7 (0x0fde3000) libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x0fc85000) libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x0fc62000) /lib/ld.so.1 => /lib/ld.so.1 (0x3000) 518 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ldd $(which pw-inspector) libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x0fea2000) /lib/ld.so.1 => /lib/ld.so.1 (0x3000) It is well known that the GNU C library is not GPLed, but LGPLed. However, the above did expose a different problem. The OpenSSL license, which applies to libssl.so.0.9.7 and libcrypto.so.0.9.7, is not GNU GPL-compatible, and therefore Debian requires an OpenSSL exception clause to be added to this package before we can redistribute it.[1] [1] http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html -- G. Branden Robinson| Organized religion is a sham and a Debian GNU/Linux | crutch for weak-minded people who [EMAIL PROTECTED] | need strength in numbers. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Jesse Ventura 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 Küster wrote:
> More generally, I found out that this is the case for many packages
> (just a random pick: emacs21{-common}, kdebase-bin, scigraphica) have
> the same deficiencies. An example for a "good" package is the xfree
> Packages;
Does this really surprise you? :)
/me dreads what is sure to befall him now that he has indulged in this
hubris
--
G. Branden Robinson| Arguments, like men, are often
Debian GNU/Linux | pretenders.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Plato
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
GPL-compatible, copyleft documentation license
Hi guys, I'm currently using the following license statement on the Debian X FAQ[1]. I would appreciate commentary and analysis. I'd also like to know if this simple enough that we could recommend it for usage more broadly. I realize my "notes" are a bit wordy. In theory they could be left out, and kept handy for people who wonder exactly what it means to release people from certain clauses of the GNU GPL. Copyright and License Copyright © 1998–2004 Branden Robinson. This is free documentation; you may redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, with the following proviso: * The copyright holder releases all licensees from the requirements * of sections 2a and 2c of the GNU General Public License, version 2. 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. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License with the Debian operating system, in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA. Notes on the License In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached to this work; see section 6. This work can be combined with another work licensed under the GNU General Public License, version 2, but any section 2a and 2c restrictions on the resulting work would only attach only due to the copyright license on the work(s) with which this work is combined and for which those restrictions are in force. The copyright holder regards the XHTML form of this document, along with any adjunct style sheets, as the Source Code of this Work for the purposes of the GNU General Public License. If you have a problem interpreting the GNU General Public License, please contact the debian-legal mailing list, the Free Software Foundation, or an attorney. If you find the copyright holder's notes on the license confusing, please contact him and/or the debian-legal mailing list. [1] http://necrotic.deadbeast.net/xsf/XFree86/trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml#copyright -- G. Branden Robinson| Do not attempt to disprove the Debian GNU/Linux | four-colour theorem on your flag! [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Josh Parsons http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:07:03AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:44:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > > Likewise, if the change author is on a desert island, I don't see how > > > the change author can receive any requests. > > Via a message dropped from a passing airplane. Duh! > > Three people have already replied to this message, giving the "global > request" case. Once again, you're spamming the list, sending dozens > of messages without actually reading threads so you don't waste everyone's > time with repetition. This is a very bad habit; please break it. Well, let's be even-handed. If Raul Miller can raise objections to the Desert Island test that we've heard and replied to time and again, we can repeat the cycle with him. Why should Raul Miller be held to a lower standard of having to do his homework than the people who reply to him? He's been a Debian Developer for longer than most of the regulars on this list, and is a member of the Technical Committee. One would reasonably expect him to have a formidable command of the issues. -- G. Branden Robinson| We either learn from history or, Debian GNU/Linux | uh, well, something bad will [EMAIL PROTECTED] | happen. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Bob Church signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 02:59:18PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Here is a proposed summary of the QPL 1.0, based on the relevant threads > on debian-legal. Suggestions are welcome, as well as statements of > whether or not this DRAFT summary accurately represents your position. Thank you for doing this. > --- Begin DRAFT debian-legal summary of the QPL 1.0 --- > > The members of the debian-legal mailing list have examined the Q Public > License (QPL), version 1.0, and determined that software licensed solely s/that software licensed solely/, in general, works licensed to the public solely/ > under this license is not Free Software according to the Debian Free s/is not/are not/ > Software Guidelines (DFSG). > > * Clause 6c requires modified versions that are not distributed to the > public to be provided to the original developer on request. This > requirement fails the "Desert Island" test and the "Dissident" test (see > sections 9a, 9b, and 12o of the DFSG FAQ at > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html). DFSG-free licenses must > allow non-distributed or privately-distributed modifications, and cannot > require distribution to anyone, except for requiring that source be > distributed to those who receive a binary. Simplification: s/anyone, except for requiring that source be distributed to those who receive a binary./third parties not involved in a specific act of distribution/ (Let's get that "source" and "binary" stuff out of there and be more general.) > * The license contains a "choice of venue" clause, which states that > "Disputes shall be settled by Amsterdam City Court.". Since in many Get rid of the dependent clause, as we've seen that different users of the QPL change the choice of venue clause without noting that they have done so. In any case, which specific venue it is doesn't affect our reasoning. > legal jurisdictions, a party that fails to appear and defend themselves > in the courts of the given jurisdiction will automatically lose such a > dispute, such "choice of venue" clauses place an undue burden on the > recipient of the software in the face of any legal action (whether > legitimate or not), and are therefore considered non-free. Such clauses > also fail the "Tentacles of Evil" test (see section 9c of the DFSG FAQ > at http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), since the original > developer can bring many unfounded legal actions against distributors > and force them to travel to a given location to defend themselves, which > would effectively remove the right to distribute the software. > > For software currently licensed under the QPL 1.0 whose authors desire > its inclusion in Debian, debian-legal recommends licensing that software > under a Free Software license such as the GNU GPL, either in place of or > as an alternative to the QPL 1.0. Sounds good. You may or may not want to take into account the Debian Wiki page on DFSG-free licenses[1], and what it has to say about the QPL. The DFSG-freeness of this license has been called into question. Some people appear to believe that because the Qt library is in Debian main, that the QPL is DFSG-free. That is a hasty conclusion, however, because the Qt library is also licensed under the GNU GPL (see http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/announcements/0043.html). The QPL is not GPL-compatible, which, regardless of one's opinion about the license's DFSG-freeness, poses a major practical problem for any code licensed under the QPL that is reused elsewhere in conjunction with code under the GNU GPL. This makes the QPL alone a particularly poor choice of license for a library. Furthermore, it is not clear that the Trolltech corporation (the author of the Qt library and the QPL itself) believes the QPL to be a free software license. Trolltech's website describes how their dual-license approach is intended to be "open source-friendly" (see http://www.trolltech.com/company/model.html). If Trolltech felt that the QPL alone were friendly enough to open-source, why do they have a dual-licensing policy? Copyright holders in QPL-licensed works should be encouraged to follow Trolltech's example, and dual-license their work under the GNU GPL or another clearly DFSG-free license. Full disclosure: I wrote much of the above. [1] http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DFSGLicences -- G. Branden Robinson|Religion is regarded by the common Debian GNU/Linux |people as true, by the wise as [EMAIL PROTECTED] |false, and by the rulers as useful. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca signature.asc Description: Digital signature
speak now or forever hold your peace? [was: Bug#242449: mysql vs. libdbd-mysql-perl vs. apache]
Given what Christian Hammers has said below, I guess debian-legal better move quickly to evaluate what's going on here. (I personally only have a vague recollection of the issue in question, and would have to review bug logs/mailing list threads to get back up to speed.) Mr. Hammers, in the future when declaring that you're awaiting feedback from the debian-legal list, it might be wise to let them know. :) - Forwarded message from Christian Hammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Christian Hammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#242449: mysql vs. libdbd-mysql-perl vs. apache Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 00:43:33 +0200 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/17192 X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.10claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=4.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63-lists.debian.org_2004_06_20_05 Hello Mat On 2004-07-06 Matt Zimmerman wrote: > Any word on this? Did the licensing change become official last month, as > hoped? Yes, being just back from holidays I see that the version 1.4 of the FLOSS Exception Licence made its way to the documentation at the mysql.com web site: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/MySQL_FOSS_License_Exception.html As far as I understood the issues this bug can now be closed. I will do it if I do not receive any objections in the next 2-3 days from the debian-legal people (in case another problem arose while I was away...). bye, -christian- ----- End forwarded message - -- G. Branden Robinson|The basic test of freedom is Debian GNU/Linux |perhaps less in what we are free to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |do than in what we are free not to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |do. -- Eric Hoffer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#242449: speak now or forever hold your peace? [was: Bug#242449: mysql vs. libdbd-mysql-perl vs. apache]
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:01:02PM +0200, Christian Hammers wrote: > On 2004-07-12 Branden Robinson wrote: > > Given what Christian Hammers has said below, I guess debian-legal better > > move quickly to evaluate what's going on here. > > Sorry, I mixed up -policy with -legal. But you guys do not need to do anything > at the moment. The CVS version of the licence has not yet been made official > MySQL licence and I'm currently waiting on feedback from the MySQL licence > man. Acknowledged; thanks for the clarification. -- G. Branden Robinson| Exercise your freedom of religion. Debian GNU/Linux | Set fire to a church of your [EMAIL PROTECTED] | choice. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: "remove this package from another developer" (was: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.)
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:09:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > > debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final > > > decision lies with the archive maintainers. > > > > I see. Where are the archive maintainers' official delegations? > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/05/msg5.html > > IIRC, Martin mentioned this the last time you asked about delegations, > too. I don't see any delegations of archive administrators in that message. The last time I asked about delegations, six months later Martin replied and said he thought official delegation processes were "against the way Debian works"[1]. Okay, fair enough. Archive administration is done by those who roll up their sleeves and do it -- the people on other end of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. By the same token, public DFSG-based analysis of licenses and how they are applied to the works we ship is done by those who roll up their sleeves and do it -- the debian-legal mailing list. I fail to see why debian-legal's "undelegated" status is at all relevant given our current leadership philsophy. Martin's mail[1] is well worth reviewing; if people are unhappy with the way the folks on debian-legal are analyzing licenses, they should to come forward and propose alternatives. It's not as if the way debian-legal really works is hidden from view, so anyone who bothers to actually read the list traffic is in a good position to make informed recommendations. Debian-legal's DFSG analyses are among the most transparent processes we have. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/11/msg00041.html -- G. Branden Robinson| Reality is what refuses to go away Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Philip K. Dick http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:56:47AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-07-12 07:49:55 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >At least, not as the DFSG is currently written. You could propose > >that > >GPL-compatibility be a DFSG criterion. It might pass. > > I think restrospectively justifying a "Holier than Stallman" tag with > such a decision is unlikely to happen. The MIT/X11-style licences are > fine for some tasks. I'm not so sure it would be a bad idea, but perhaps I've been unduly influenced by one of David A. Wheeler's essays[1]. :) However, given that we don't have any control over the content of future versions of the GNU GPL, and don't know to what extent we will be invited to participate in deliberations regarding the content of the GNU GPL v3, I would be loath to take an action that may compromise our organizational independence. That's quite apart from the perception issue you noted, which I find credible enough. [1] http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html -- G. Branden Robinson|Those who fail to remember the laws Debian GNU/Linux |of science are condemned to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |rediscover some of the worst ones. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Harold Gordon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:18:36AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:49:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I see; what sort of DFSG violations do you consider "minor"?
>
> Minor is relative, and depends on context.
>
> In the context of GPL compatability [which I think the current context
> is], "minor" means "things which would automatically be dealt with
> if the GPL incompatability issues were resolved".
>
> More generally, I think the most important issues for us are:
>
> [*] porting (to other platforms)
> [*] maintenance (especially security fixes, but not only)
> [*] translation (to other human languages)
> [*] legal distribution (especially for our mirror operators, b...)
> [*] interoperability (especially compliance with important standards)
>
> Secondary issues [these fall under "maintenance"] include:
>
> [*] modularity (providing good machine interfaces)
> [*] performance (not doing unnecessary things)
> [*] consistent documentation (lots of bugs fall in this category)
>
> These are incomplete lists.
I find the FSF's four freedoms[1] essay pithier and more persuasive.
> Minor issues in the general case are issues which don't advance important
> issues [such as the above] as causes.
I personally would like to keep the presumptiveness about which types of
freedoms are important to our users to a minimum. ("You want to change
*what* to add a new feature?", we say. "Hmm, let's see: it doesn't have to
do with porting, maintenance, translation, legal distribution, or
interoperability. It also doesn't have to do with modularity, performance,
or consistent documentation. Sorry, your case isn't really important to
us, so we don't fine the copyright holder's requirement that you publish
your changes in the form of a Jumbotron advertisement in Times Square to be
excessively burdensome. Have a nice day!")
> > > It's ok to say: here's the big problem, and here's some other areas of
> > > concern that you might want to think about.
> > >
> > > It's misleading to say "this is a problem" when we accept licenses as
> > > DFSG even though they have "this problem".
> >
> > Which licenses do we accept as DFSG-free even though they have "this
> > problem"?
>
> That's for you to say.
No; it is you who has asserting that 'we accept licenses as DFSG[-free]
even though they have "this problem"'. The burden of proof is on the
affirmative.
> > The GNU GPL is often a good choice for a license, but we are not an organ of
> > the Free Software Foundation, and DFSG-freeness is not predicated on
> > GPL-compatibility.
> >
> > At least, not as the DFSG is currently written. You could propose that
> > GPL-compatibility be a DFSG criterion. It might pass.
>
> I'm satisfied with DFSG#10, thanks.
That says the GNU GPL itself is an example of a DFSG-free license. It
doesn't say anything about licenses that aren't the GNU GPL being
compatible with the terms of the GNU GPL.
I reiterate: DFSG-freeness is not predicated on GPL-compatibility.
> Note also that in this case we're talking about a license which
> represents itself as GPL compatible.
No, it does not "represent itself as GPL compatible". It represents itself
as being the GNU GPL version 2, with a rider tacked onto it.
We've long known that tacking riders onto the GNU GPL that aren't in the
form of grants of additional permissions are problematic. Let me know if
you need me to trawl the archives of this list to support this statement,
but for the moment I'm going to assume it's common knowledge.
> > > > > you are pushing a line of logic that seems to make the GPL
> > > > > non-free.
> > > >
> > > > Eh? What's with this scare-mongering, slippery-slope argument?
> > >
> > > It's the literal truth. You've advanced a claim that "if the license
> > > requires something of value, the license cannot satisfy the DFSG". And,
> > > the GPL requires something of value.
> >
> > You have elided "in exchange for rights under the license".
>
> That's implicitly true of any license clause. Sometimes this is stated
> explicitly, for clarity, but if you violate a license clause you open
> yourself for legal action on the basis that you're not following the
> license.
I do not see how your statement supports your assertion that I am "pushing
a line of logic that seems to make the GPL non-free".
> > One you undertake actions regulate
Re: xinetd license possibly violates DFSG #4
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 05:17:25PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Branden Robinson wrote: > > At the same time, I'm struggling to determine an essential distinction > > between a single de-facto closed-universe project, and a vast collection of > > such projects (which all works licensed under the GNU GPL could be said to > > be). > > Parts of works under the GNU GPL (or other compatible licenses) can be > incorporated into other projects under the GNU GPL (or other compatible > licenses). I don't think this makes it a "closed-universe project", > although perhaps the entire collection of such projects could be > considered a "closed universe". > > Parts of works under a patch clause license cannot be easily > incorporated into other projects (regardless of those other projects' > licenses), unless the entirety of the other project is considered to be > a patch on the part of the patch-clause-licensed work. This becomes > even more difficult when incorporating material from more than one such > work. Hmm, that does appear to be a telling distinction. You may have identified why our "patch clause" exception makes me so uncomfortable. -- G. Branden Robinson|It's like I have a shotgun in my Debian GNU/Linux |mouth, I've got my finger on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] |trigger, and I like the taste of http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |the gunmetal. -- Robert Downey, Jr. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
