libdvdcss in non-us?
Anyone knows about the legal status of libdvdcss? I've read in the archive that there is very little chance for the ftpmasters to accept this package due to their paranoia WRT the MPAA and such. However, some proprietary distributions have started distributing it without being sued. Furthermore, there is no reason for us to have problems if it is distributed in non-us. Wouldn't it be an appropriate place to distribute it? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: GPL and command-line libraries
Le mardi 02 novembre 2004 à 21:53 +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit : > Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client. > To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library. > Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's client can't work at all. > Mr. Wontshare's client represents only a small investment of effort and > without having had access to my library, he could have never written it. > He then distributes his client along with my library to end-users. If Mr Wontshare's client doesn't work without your software, this is what I call a derivative work. Whether it is linked to it using ELF or not is irrelevant. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Le jeu 21/08/2003 à 07:09, Branden Robinson a écrit : > === CUT HERE === > > Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 > > Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your > opinion. Mark only one. > > [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published > by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible > with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this > license would require significant additional permission > statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this > license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for > inclusion in the Debian OS. > > [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published > by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible > with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works > under this license would require no additional permission > statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this > license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for > inclusion in the Debian OS. > > [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published > by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible > with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain > restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the > copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under > this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case > basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered > Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. > > [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. > > Part 2. Status of Respondent > > Please mark with an "X" the following item only if it is true. > > [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian > Constitution as of the date on this survey. > > === CUT HERE === -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Le jeu 21/08/2003 à 17:07, John Goerzen a écrit : > Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply > *software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally > different beasts. Thus, I see the question as rather misleading. Could you please explain which guidelines you intend to apply to documentation then? I'm rather curious to see which language tricks you will be using to justify the GFDL being free. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: [STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Le dim 24/08/2003 à 10:56, Eduard Bloch a écrit : > I propose to make a simple change in the DSFG (or document the license > evalutiang method in the policy, whatever): differentiate between > > - pure FDL (which is obviously free) > - tainted FDL (with invariant sections) It looks about 2 out of 3 of people who answered this survey disagree with your vision of pure FDL, so I'm afraid the "obviously" term should be removed from your analysis. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le dim 24/08/2003 à 21:44, Fedor Zuev a écrit : > >If people disagree with what you say, you should not prohibit them > >from doing so. You're still a well-known person who can reasonably > >assume that what you write or say will not go unnoticed. Even if > >it's removed from one distribution of a manual. > > I cannot see any connection between disagreement with anyone > opinion, and the right to censor somebody else's opinion, so > angrily demanded by you. > > But, since these demands and these sophisms repeated only on > this list only in the last several days several times already, I > should conclude, that FSF was completely right, when included > counter-censorship measures in its license. Can't you understand nobody would ask for removing these sections if they were as free as the FSF would like to call them ? OH MY GOD, WE DON'T INCLUDE ACROBAT IN DEBIAN MAIN, THIS IS *CENSORSHIP*, WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXCLUDE IT FROM DISTRIBUTION! -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le dim 24/08/2003 à 14:57, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit : > BTW, I understand, FDL with invariant section infringements freedoms of > the distributor, as Debian. Distributor is the last instance where the > software package can be modified before it will be delivered to user. > Distributor have more control of the package contents in this case. So > FDL shifts control over specific parts of the documentation to software > author. Do you realize you are reasoning just like the proprietary software folks the FDL is supposedly meant to fight ? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 09:22, Fedor Zuev a écrit : > When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect > to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad. > But it is different problem. No, it is exactly one of the problems. Have you ever read the DFSG? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 06:35, Fedor Zuev a écrit : > At the very least, if you can read the document, you always, > technically, can OCR it. An experience shows, that, if you should > not care about legal requirements (because you has the right from > license, you OCR public domain or, simply, you do not care about a > law), it takes no more than 24-48 man\hours to completely OCR a > large 500-700pages book. And there always will bee volunteers to do > that. And you can always modify a binary because it is possible to edit the assembly code. Once again, you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 08:38, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit : > Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > Do you realize you are reasoning just like the proprietary software > > folks the FDL is supposedly meant to fight ? > > There is a basic difference between free software foundation folks and > proprietary software folks. But both try to use practical and ethical > reasoning. As Josselin Mouette said: > > > Can't you understand nobody would ask for removing these sections if > > they were as free as the FSF would like to call them ? > > This is a good example of the freedom, which is not used. So, why not to > take away it? GPL does similar things, it takes away the freedom of > using proprietary code with the GPL code from user. But we got something > in exchange - wide free software and documentation spreading. GPL doesn't take away freedom. It is a copyleft, full stop. As long as you respect the copyleft, you are free to do anything you want with the software. There is no limitation in what you can do, the limitation is on how you have to do it. The GFDL is very different. It adds restrictions you often find in proprietary software: discrimination against fields of endeavour, restrictions on modification. > I do not think Debian can safely ignore proprietary software existence, > as some people on this list do[1]. If the world would be > black-and-white, I will put FDL on the white side of the black-and-white > world, together with GPL, FSF, Debian. We are not talking about color of things. We are talking about their DFSG-freeness. > While we discussing FDL, clearly non-free software is still disributed > by Debian. I already answered on that specific issue [1], are you *again* trying to move the discussion to a completely unrelated point? [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00771.html -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 08:28, Fedor Zuev a écrit : > No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free > software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free > software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors (besides, of > course, the freedom to distribute itself). Free software is about > the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. It is in the best interest of > users to receive unstripped version of manual. It is also in the > best interest of authors. Interest of distributor is non-issue. Are you trying to assert point 2 of the GFDL doesn't restrict freedom of users? You are a completely dumb moron. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 17:21, Richard Stallman a écrit : > Several Debian developers have claimed that they are working with the > FSF to make the GFDL DFSG-free and GPL-compatible, specifically: > > I think I see two misunderstandings here. Just who has misunderstood, > I cannot tell. > > First, as far as I have heard, Debian has not yet voted on the > question of which GFDL-covered documents to accept. I have therefore > been trying to convince Debian developers that the GFDL is a free > license and should be accepted. Has Debian actually made this > decision? Regarding the results of the survey on this issue, almost everyone on that list agrees on the fact a document with invariant sections cannot be considered as free. Furthermore, a large majority thinks that no GFDL'ed document can be considered at suitable for Debian main. However, several developers believe we should have different rules for documentation. It is not likely to happen before a long time, as it requires changing the social contract, and they will encounter strong opposition. No decision has been made yet, but it is quite likely that after the sarge release (which will include GFDL'ed documents as stated by the Release Manager), some or all documents under the GFDL are removed from our distribution and moved to non-free. > We won't try to go beyond that until after GPL 3 is ready--and > we're not making much progress on GPL 3 due to lack of manpower. As for GPL 3, do you intend to use clauses similar to invariant sections or to the technical measures stuff in GFDL section 2? This is a matter of concern on this list. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 16:21, Fedor Zuev a écrit : > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > >Le lun 25/08/2003 ? 09:22, Fedor Zuev a ?crit : > >> When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect > >> to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad. > >> But it is different problem. > > >No, it is exactly one of the problems. > > Every free license have its scope of applicability, outside > of which it may turn to non-free license. For example, if you > license a music phonorecord under GPL, you get pretty non-free > phonorecord with funny license. And you can begin from GPL-covered > literary work. *shrug* This would be non-free? Wow. BTW, don't even try to justify this statement, you have already proved several times you are able to say any sort of crap without foundation in this discussion. > Yes, I would understand your points. GFDL has too narrow > scope for. > > But, please, can you take one point at a time? > > You talk about real dangers for users from GFDL? We have been talking about dangers for users FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS DISCUSSION. I suggest you read it again. And if you don't understand it, read it once again. This may be needed for stubborn minds. > Or you talk about Eternal Freedom? We are talking about freedom for our users *today*, not in 70 years. > What _exactly_ wrong with DFSG? DFSG does not define scope > in which works should be freely modifiable. It can't be universal > scope because there is no licenses, which free in the universal > scope. Free licenses don't discriminate against scope, that is the point. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 20:32, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit : > Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > GPL doesn't take away freedom. It is a copyleft, full stop. As long as > > you respect the copyleft, you are free to do anything you want with the > > software. There is no limitation in what you can do, the limitation is > > on how you have to do it. > > Sorry, but GPL have restrictions on what you can do with the code. One > of the most noticeble is a restriction on using GPL code in(with) > proprietary works. The work being proprietary has nothing to do with the contents of the work itself, which is just what I stated above. Please don't answer to a message by showing you haven't even read it, this behavior is quite prone to get you put in some killfiles (which already happened). > > The GFDL is very different. It adds restrictions you often find in > > proprietary software: discrimination against fields of endeavour, > > restrictions on modification. > > As with GPL, those FDL resrictions have completely another background in > comparison with proprietary software. One, who ignores the difference in > the FDL background should reject GPL also (if he wants to be consistent). I don't see much difference between a proprietary work you can't modify and a proprietary work you can't modify with a "Free" stick. Blabbering about world domination of free software without even ensuring works you release are free is a good way to fail: when world domination is achieved, you realize you made so many exceptions that you are far from your original vision. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 05:45, Nathanael Nerode a écrit :
> Jerome Marant said:
> >Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to
> >distribute something else than software.
>
> >From this sentence, I see that you are not fluent in English.
> ("It doesn't prevent Debian from distributing something other than
> software" would be correct.)
>
> Perhaps this is in fact the source of your confusion. The phrase
> "Debian will remain 100% Free Software", interpreted by a fluent English
> speaker, means one of the following:
> 100% of Debian is (and will remain) "Free Software"
>
> Debian is (and will remain) "Software", and that Software is "100% Free"
>
> Practically, the difference between these is not significant, although the
> second interpretation is a little bizarre.
>
> Your interpretation is:
> 100% of the Software in Debian will remain Free
> That's simply not a correct interpretation. However, I could understand if
> someone who was not fluent in English misinterpreted it that way.
Then you are also asserting that Jérôme is not fluent in French either.
The translated clause writes as:
« Debian demeurera un ensemble logiciel totalement libre. »
This sentence is perfectly clear, and can not be read as:
« L'ensemble des logiciels dans Debian demeureront totalement libres. »
However, I believe Jérôme can read correctly and is not stupid; maybe he
said that on purpose, and wants the social contract to be changed.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 06:52, Fedor Zuev a écrit : > 3) And you do not have convention just because in majority > of cases this elements of formatting is completely unimportant for > using the text. [blah blah] > There are _many_ OCR programs in the world. There is _no_ > x86-disassembler, which assure compilable output, in the world. Funny one. I am sure you will point us to a magical OCR that can gather structural information and extract e.g. scientific formulas from a document. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 10:43, Jérôme Marant a écrit : > > However, I believe Jérôme can read correctly and is not stupid; maybe he > > said that on purpose, and wants the social contract to be changed. > > I don't need a spokesman. Without clarification from your side, it was hard to know how to understand your sayings. I did believe you had read the translation, so sorry if my answer seemed a bit rude, it was not meant to. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 14:07, Fedor Zuev a écrit : > I do not say, that users want to read Manifesto or Adobe > EULA. I say that they can reasonable expect to receive it from you. > There may be reasons for this, other than pleasure of reading. > > May be user will decide not to use Emacs at all, if he will > know, that Emacs and Manifesto written by the same man. (Btw, this > if a far more usual and far more honest behavior, than strip > Manifesto and continue to use it) You don't understand what free software is about. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 16:33, Sergey Spiridonov a écrit : > Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > As far as I know, there is no such restriction in usage. It only limits > > Yes, I agree. What I want to point out is: GPL have restrictions > (limitations) on what you can do with the GPL code. So, it takes away > *some* freedoms. Again, no, no and NO. What limitations are you talking about? > Debian users and maintainers agree with such limitations because they do > not need this freedom in most cases (the freedom to include GPL code > into the proprietary code and to distribute binary result). THIS - IS - NOT - A - LIMITATION . You can do *whatever you want* with GPL'ed code, technically speaking. Redistributing a modified version as a proprietary product, but there is no restriction on producing this version. Only a restriction on *how* you distribute it. > The same thing is with FDL. If Debian users and maintainers do not need > the freedom to remove political statements in most cases In most cases? So if we need a freedom only sometimes, we don't really need to be strict about it. Hey, most of our users don't modify the software we distribute, so why require they can? (Oops, it's exactly what you are asking for invariant sections.) > (for example > Manifesto from Emacs), they can agree with invariant sections in > documenation. The problem is not doing it. The problem is being able to do it. With your reasoning, we don't need any free software. > I believe in most cases we can agree with such a limitation. Oh, but we already agree with such limitations. In the non-free section. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Debian logo DFSG-freeness
Alfie's post reminds me that I need clarification on some point: the fact that the Debian logo, which is shipped within many of our packages, is not DFSG-free. It was already raised: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00041.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200209/msg00192.html but I don't see any statement on how this should be dealt with. Is the current status quo to consider it as DFSG-free? Or to consider it doesn't need to? If someone forks Debian and lets the logos in, he would be violating the license because of e.g. the backgrounds. It would be more clever to dual-license it under either the current license or another license; an old-style BSD license with advertising clause or a simple copyleft license come up as reasonable choices. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 18:42, Richard Stallman a écrit : > You are correct that Debian has not yet voted on whether or not to allow > GFDLd works into its distribution. The consensus of debian-legal is that > works under the GFDL does not meet the DFSG. > > I hope that the Debian developers will vote to include GFDL-covered > manuals in Debian. Whatever Debian decides, some amount of cooperation > ought to be possible between the GNU Project and Debian. You are asking for one-way cooperation. We have stated many times why we don't want GFDL'ed documents in Debian, and you imply that we need to change our minds, and you don't need to change your license. That's not the way things work. You are free not to change your license, and we are free to drop your documents if we feel your license is not suitable. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 23:29, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit : > Your upper case was so convincing, that I go to www.dict.org to check > once more, what is limitation. > So, I do not get your point, is there a *limitation* on redistributing a > modified version as a proprietary product? Or you can do *whatever you > want*? I do not think there could be answer "yes" to both questions. Blah, blah, blah. Come back when you have learned to read. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 11:17, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > > You and some other Debian developers have said this, but you do not > > speak for all Debian developers any more than I do. You are trying to > > persuade them, and I am too. I expect that eventually they will vote > > on a decision. > > And according to the Debian Social Contract #4, Debian "priorities are > [Debian] users and Free Software". > > Not only the developers point of view would be interesting, but also > "the needs of [Debian] users" (don't they like the Emacs > manual?) should be studied. If providing any sort of crap we can was a service to our users, there wouldn't be any DFSG. We believe providing a non-free manual is a disservice to our users. If they can't modify it freely, and can't put it on their encrypted filesystem, we feel it is not suitable for them. > Not to mention the fact that many contributors to Debian (translators > for instance) are not considered officially as Debian developers, > which makes Debian voting system awkward, especially about > documentation. There hasn't been any general vote for that, there is probably no need for it. Readers of this list (not only developers) have stated their strong belief that the GFDL does not follow the DFSG. If any vote is needed, it will be to exempt documentation from following the DFSG, which requires a general resolution. > So even a Debian developers's vote is probably not enough to make that > decision. Sure, normally Debian developers *should* understand what is > the best for Debian users but from what I rode on that list, it's not > sure at all for several of them. I believe the FSF is not in a situation where they can talk about the best for our users, when they prominently advocate the use of invariant sections, and spread misinformation about non-free software we distribute. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 16:09, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > The DFSG itself does not meet the DFSG itself, if you think that no > text can be invariant. Do you intend to repeat the whole load of silly things we have read during last week on this list? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: [RESULTS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 16:36, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > - This survey was made during aout, where more than usually people can > be on vacation -- yeah, I was :) Yeah, so it deprived us of your stupid arguments. What a shame. > - It's represent only the point of view of people at debian-legal > while the scope of the issue is way more general than that. People on this list are a good sample of developers and users interested in such questions. And they are by far better informed about ins and outs of licensing issues. That's exactly why ftpmasters trust the consensus on this list to tell whether or not a license is DFSG-free. And the consensus is clear, even if we add your voice to the survey. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: [was A possible GFDL compromise] documentation eq software ?
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 15:28, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > > 1/ The statement that you were objecting to here does not use "we" > > at all, so defining "we" is irrelevant. > > > I replied to Josselin who wrote the following: > > "If providing any sort of crap _we_ can was a service to our > users, there wouldn't be any DFSG. > _We_ believe providing a non-free manual is a disservice to > our users. If they can't modify it freely, and can't put it on > their encrypted filesystem, _we_ feel it is not suitable for > them." > > If you are not capable to read carefully mails you are talking about > before pretending "this is irrelevant", I do not believe the rest of > you mail can be of any interest. Sorry. "We" meaning "a large majority of people reading this list". I thought it was pretty obvious in my email. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 10:42, Fedor Zuev a écrit : > Of course. You did not know? It is a completely your > problem. You probably wanted to say something, but the following explains all: > You are not aware? Hey, I know you! You are Jean-Claude Van Damme, aren't you? Nobody can be as purely aware as you. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Can I modify the DFSG (and not derive from)?
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 22:01, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > The DFSG is free enough to be useful -- you still cannot just simply > modify it and redistribute it under the same name, do you? So what? The LPPL has the same restriction and is considered free by Debian, GNU and OSI. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 20:17, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > I can do that. It means that I would be about to write a _new text_ > _inspired_ by the DFSG and not editing the DFSG. The DFSG is invariant > just like the GPL and any other license. Bullshit. You can make a derived version based on the DFSG, only the name has to be changed. If the GFDL had such a clause instead of invariant sections, it would be considered free. > Too bad, the DFSG still do not meet the DFSG if the GFDL do not meet > the DFSG. Wrong. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
(completely OFF-TOPIC)
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 21:52, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > To make this message more clear to the people on that list: Josselin > usually criticize every messages I post he seen on the website > linuxfr.org. I'm not surprised to see him acting here in the same > way. I see being on this list does not improve the quality of your writings. After invading a website with a bunch of other trollers - which is quite a secondary issue - do you intend to do the same with the Debian organization ? To other readers: sorry for this public settling of scores. I'm afraid I still have to learn not to choke at each of Mathieu's intervention. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le mer 03/09/2003 à 04:56, Richard Stallman a écrit : > >This is an illuminating comparison, because the practical problems of > >the GFDL (and I won't claim there are none) are basically of the same > >kind (though of a lower magnitude) than those of the 4-clause BSD > ^^^ > Replace this with "greater magnitude", and you'll have my opinion on the > practical problems (as opposed to the freeness problems). This is > because > the 4-clause BSD license only directly imposed a burden on people who > chose > to advertise, while the GFDL imposes corresponding burdens on all users. > > There is no burden at all for most users, who install and copy the > system. The practical problems occur only in special cases. So you think the "technical measures" clause is not a burden for users? You must be joking. This clause has a direct effect on all users, restricting the use of e.g. encrypted filesystems. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Le mar 09/09/2003 à 16:02, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > I asked to think about a possible distinction for Debian between > non-free software and GFDLed documentation. Reminds me of something... yeah, here it is. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00771.html (But I'll guess you'll go on ignoring what was already said in this thread, repeating things again and again.) -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Le mar 09/09/2003 à 17:24, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > If _I_ (note the "I") publish a manual under the GFDL, as plain text, > with no invariant sections, you're allowed to modify it and > redistribute it. At this point, you cannot claim it's non-free. Of course it is. You forbid others to put a copy in a private directory with 0600 permissions. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Does the Official Debian Logo fail the DFSG test?
Le ven 19/09/2003 à 03:55, Don Armstrong a écrit : > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Etienne Gagnon wrote: > > This prompts an interesting question: Does the Official Debian logo > > meet the DFSG test? > > No, but I'm pretty sure that we don't include the official logo in the > Debian distribution. True, but the swirl logo fails the DFSG as well, as you can only use it to refer to the project, and it doesn't allow explicitly other uses. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Le ven 19/09/2003 à 17:39, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > However, Debian has a pretty clear definition, according to supposedly > Bruce Perens's statements. According to this clear definition, the > official Debian Logo should go in non-free. We don't ship the official (jar+swirl) Debian logo in main. If you find it in a package, please report a serious bug against it. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Le dim 21/09/2003 à 15:52, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > > The DFSG are for the Debian OS. Not for the Debian project. Please > > stop mixing these two notions, they are not identical. > > You failed to convince me. But if it helps you to see things that way, > feel free to do it... I'm afraid many people here are not trying to convince you, but rather to get rid of you. > > I'm not sure the GNU project is more consistent than the Debian > > project is: its major goal is to provide freedom to the users, yet it > > publishes non-free documentation > > This is a mistake. > It publishes free documentation according to GNU, non-free according > to Debian. You seem to forget the GNU project also publishes non-free, entirely unmodifiable essays. (BTW, I don't believe the GFDL to be free even using the GNU definition of freedom.) > > It's not playing on words. It's just how things are. When you buy > > a car from brand X, you don't get any rights on the trademark X, or on > > the X logo. > > Yes, and I do not claim that the logo Renault on my car is not part of > my car. The official Debian logo means endorsement by the Debian PROJECT. Do you understand what is the Debian PROJECT ? A DD-wannabe like you should be aware of the distinction between the project and the OS. The official Debian logo is not included in the Debian OS (read: it is not on your car), it is a mark of approval by the community of Debian developers (read: it is on the Renault dealer's sign). -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Le sam 20/09/2003 à 23:27, Richard Stallman a écrit : > The DFSG is written as if the system consists entirely of programs and > contains nothing else. This is bullshit. Just read the DFSG, and you will see they can be applied to anything that we put on our CD's and FTP's. Writing specific guidelines for documentation or data would lead straightly to the same definition. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Le dim 21/09/2003 à 17:40, Alexandre Dulaunoy a écrit : > So if you take the document from the Gutenberg[1] project, is it > software for you ? If I want to include it on the Debian CD's, of course it is. > and you have to apply the rule of DFSG for the > books of Steven Levy or Victor Hugo ? Why would they differ from other books? > Would you modify the various > books ? I would be allowed to do that. Which makes them free software. > A book is not software and this is not the same > definition. A book is, in its numerical form, software. > The freedom objectives are the same but they are > small differences. Name them. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Unidentified subject!
Le lun 22/09/2003 à 08:30, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > Apparently it's clear that Debian do not consider that his very own > logo must be free software -- that's right, you do not need a logo at > all to have a complete free operating system. > If Debian already recognize that non-program software can be non-free > without that being a problem, why refusing to include a documentation > that include a non-program software (technical documentation is > likely program)? Can you read ? *WE DO NOT SHIP THE OFFICIAL DEBIAN LOGO WITHIN THE DEBIAN OPERATING SYSTEM.* And if you have problems with English: *LE LOGO OFFICIEL DEBIAN NE FAIT PAS PARTIE DU SYSTÈME D'EXPLOITATION DEBIAN.* The open use logo has another issue as its license needs a better wording, but almost everyone on this list will agree that it needs to be clarified. And you should note that while SPI is ready to change its licensing to keep the open use logo in main (AND NOT THE OFFICIAL DEBIAN LOGO WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEBIAN OPERATING SYSTEM), the FSF doesn't seem to be willing to do such things. Nobody here is asking the FSF to make the political statements on their website DFSG-free. We are explaining that all parts of the Debian operating system, including documentations (BUT NOT THE OFFICIAL DEBIAN LOGO WHICH IS NOT PART OF THE DEBIAN OPERATING SYSTEM), must be DFSG-free. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
Le lun 22/09/2003 à 09:46, Glenn Maynard a écrit : > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: > > IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that > > it says is licensed under the GPL. > > http://oss.software.ibm.com/acpmodem/ > > No source code is provided for the DSP binaries. (N.B., past > > discussions of this issue have reached the conclusion that such > > software can nevertheless be distributed in main.) > > If it's licensed under the GPL, and no source is provided, then it can > not be distributed at all, not even in non-free, unless there never was > source to begin with. (I assume this isn't the case, as you said "no > source code is provided", not "no source code exists".) If the binaries were entirely written using assembly code, the binary here equates the source. But if they were written using a higher-level language, it makes them more hardly suitable for main. However, if modifying them is achievable and potentially useful, they could be considered the same as bitmap pictures when the layered source is missing. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
Le lun 22/09/2003 à 16:04, Sam Hocevar a écrit : > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > If the binaries were entirely written using assembly code, the binary > > here equates the source. > >This is very rarely true. Even assembly code has variable and function > names, comments and macros. A disassembler output is certainly not the > preferred form for modification in most cases. Well, *if* it is the case, then. It seems to be much less common than what I first thought. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Starting to talk
Le mar 23/09/2003 à 08:31, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > On 2003-09-22 15:14:45 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Does the DFSG definition of freedom that applies to program > > > (nobody question that) help us to draw the line at the correct place > > > also for documentation? > > > > Trivially, all Debian developers who have passed P&P should have > > agreed to this. Any who agreed but do not agree should know the > > process for resignation. > > So any member of GNU must resign from Debian or GNU? Interesting. If he is not able to make a separation between what GNU calls free and what is suitable for Debian main, yes. > Apparently you misunderstood my question which still seems to me > pretty clear. So, does the DFSG definition of freedom help us to draw > the line at the correct place also for documentation? Please try and write a different set of guidelines for documentation. We'll see if it differs by a single word from the DFSG. PS: Am I the only one with the impression every single thing must be repeated to RMS AND yeupou AND Fedor Zuev AND Sergey foobar and any other blind GFDL advocate who is told Debian is BAD, because they want to drop FREE (it is written free on it, so it is certainly free) documentation from the GREAT GNU project ? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: use of official logo in app splash screens
Le mer 24/09/2003 à 16:43, Simon Law a écrit : > > Now, we wonder if we are allowed to use the official logo (because it > > is a Debian-product, the Debian-Pakete of OpenOffice.org) or if we > > should use the open one? > > The official one is not acceptable for this use. > > The open use logo would be great to use, and certain packages > already do, except it has a non-free license! The solution is not to stop using it, but rather to change its licensing. Sadly, it will probably require a GR. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée.
Re: stepping in between Debian and FSF [Was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal]
Le ven 26/09/2003 à 08:35, Bruce Perens a écrit : > On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:27:06PM -0700, bruce wrote: > > I met with Eben Moglen the other day. I have some other FSF folks on my > list that I haven't been able to speak with yet, and will try to get to > on Friday. I want to talk with them some more before bringing it to the > list, but the situation hardly seems immovable. This is very good news. RMS often gives the impression to be the only person to make decisions at the FSF, and I am happy to hear some people want things to change. (BTW, I fully support you on the non-free removal side, and am sure I am not alone on this list. I hope the GR can be voted soon.) -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée.
Re: GFDL
Le mar 30/09/2003 à 19:38, Fedor Zuev a écrit : > >What I *have* seen is assertions that removable-but-not-modifiable > >text should be removed, as it is not DFSG-free. > > Do you know many political texts of GNU, which is freely > modifiable? Do you know about something interesting to say? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée.
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Le mer 08/10/2003 à 00:39, Gabucino a écrit : > We don't want to receive the endless flow of mails asking about why the > newest, apt-get'ed MPlayer doesn't play ASF/WMV files (a very significant > part of the streaming media on the Internet). If we don't want to include this support, this is not your problem. E.g. xine in Debian has WMV9 support stripped off, and there would be no reason for mplayer to include it if there are legal issues with it. > Debian actually forgets the legal issues in the case of xine (please don't > argue, a year has passed since this argument of mine was raised first, and no > effect to this very day), so *please* don't come with this line. Another issue is that the xine authors have always been cooperative instead of ranting about this and that. Anyway, after all successive problems we encountered with mplayer, the maintainer will have a hard time convincing the ftpmasters that his package is 100 % free software, and free of patent issues. You can call this discrimination, I will call this careful attention towards some people who already proved to be incompetent regarding legal issues. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée.
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Le mer 08/10/2003 à 10:35, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS a écrit : > > If we don't want to include this support, this is not your problem. E.g. > > xine in Debian has WMV9 support stripped off, and there would be no > > reason for mplayer to include it if there are legal issues with it. > > Should this perhaps be mentioned in the package description? > > In http://packages.debian.org/unstable/graphics/xine-ui.html there is > no mention of WMV, but there is a link to http://xine.sf.net/ for a > more complete list of supported audio/video formats, and > http://xine.sf.net/ says that xine decodes WMV. It does decode WMV8. As Gabucino mentioned, it can also decode WMV9 using the win32 DLL's, but distributing them is presumably illegal, so this is only a solution for those who have a copy of some Windows version on their computer. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée.
Unicode data licensing and gucharmap
There is currently a RC bug reported against gucharmap (#216118), because it includes files derived from the Unicode character database. The license for these files is available at http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/UCD.html I'm pasting it below. Limitations on Rights to Redistribute This Data Recipient is granted the right to make copies in any form for internal distribution and to freely use the information supplied in the creation of products supporting the UnicodeTM Standard. The files in the Unicode Character Database can be redistributed to third parties or other organizations (whether for profit or not) as long as this notice and the disclaimer notice are retained. Information can be extracted from these files and used in documentation or programs, as long as there is an accompanying notice indicating the source. The file Unihan.txt contains older and inconsistent Terms of Use. That language is overridden by these terms. Of course we can't ship such files in main. However, only derived versions are shipped, and they are generated from UCD by "extracting the information". So the question is, does this licensing allow for shipping the generated files under any license? Here, the GPL. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée.
Re: Source only opensource licence.
Le mar 02/12/2003 à 00:18, Franck a écrit : >The licence would not be so bad. The only restriction is about the > redistribution of binaries wich would be restricted. Windows binaries > distribution would be forbidden, but GNU/Linux (as well as GNU Hurd and > BSDs) binary distribution would be okay without restriction. > > >From the GNU/Linux point of view, the licence is like GPL. Only windows > and other non free operating system would be restricted. For them, the > licence is like QMail's licence. >We would like to write the most open-source friendly licence based on > the above terms, and we are open to any suggestion. Dual licencsing is > an option if we find a way to make evrything working. It is quite difficult to make a software free, but only for some use. Well, this is often non-free. If there are enough Windows-specific bits, you might want to license the *nix version under the GPL, and the windows version under a qmail-like license. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée.
Re: Reproducible, precompiled .o files: what say policy+gpl?
Le lundi 18 octobre 2004 à 19:22 +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit : > So, when it comes time to release this and include it in a .deb, I ask > myself: what would happen if I included (with the C source and ocaml > compiler) some precompiled object files for i386? As long as the build > target is i386, these object files could be linked in instead of using > gcc to produce (slower) object files. This would mean a 2* speedup for > users, which is vital in order to reach line-speed. Other platforms > recompile as normal. > > On the other hand, is this still open source? > Is this allowed by policy? > Can this go into main? Main must be built with only packages from main. If you really want to distribute a package built with icc, you should make a separate package in the contrib section, and have it conflict with the package in main. The GPL doesn't restrict anything you are describing, as long as the source is available alongside. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Bug#216667: Freetype patent issues
Le sam 24/01/2004 à 00:12, Anthony Fok a écrit : > I just did some experiments, and it seems that the "prettier" version > (http://descent.netsplit.com/~scott/fonts-upstream.png) was rendered with > FreeType's "autohinting" on. Yes, enabling the autohinter disables the bytecode interpreter as the two methods are incompatible. > In that case, I suggest modifying > /etc/fonts/local.conf and uncomment the following: > > > You can do it with debconf. A quick survey showed most users prefer the bytecode interpreter, so fontconfig uses it by default, but you have the choice. As for legal issues, I fail to see why we should drop something for a patent that is not actively enforced, especially when it is not known whether it is actually enforceable. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée.
Re: If DFSG apply to non-software, is GPL*L* incompatible with DFSG?
Le sam 28/02/2004 à 15:58, Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley a écrit : > Last year, when the controversy over whether the DFSG applies to > documentation (in particular GNU-FDL-ed documentation), I meant to > mention to someone (but promptly forgot) that the license under which > the text of the FSF's licenses (GPL, LGPL, FDL) are licensed is much > stricter than even the FDL so cearly violates the DFSG (if they apply > to it). > > The GPL &c are allowed to be copied only in full without any > modifications. > > If the DFSG do apply to non-software -- has a descision been made on > this? -- this would I think effectively stop Debian from distributing > any GPLed work on a CD which conforms to the DFSG. Oh dear. Poor, poor horses. Even dead, they are never left alone. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée.
Re: The GPL license document "COPYING" is not DFSG-free
Le jeu 25/03/2004 à 12:33, Number Six a écrit : > I thought the whole hoopla over GFDL was invariant sections. > The entire GPL license is non-modifiable. Poor, poor horses. You'd thought everyone has forgotten them when they're six feet under, but their suffering won't stop. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée.
Re: Bug#325653: Please check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
Le mardi 30 août 2005 à 03:37 +0100, Simos Xenitellis a écrit : > Package: fontconfig > Version: 1.1 Please, this has nothing to do in a bug log, especially in fontconfig. > The StixFonts project started 10 years ago by several publishing houses > of academic journals, > with the aim to create fonts for mathmetical publications. > These fonts, StixFonts, are nearing completion and at this point a draft > user license > has been made available at > http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html > > It looks that the license is similar to that of Bitstream Vera (good!). > Could you please check the license and provide feedback to them? > I would expect as response something like "Yes, we checked the license, > and as is, it's suitable to include in Debian!" > or "As is it's not good, but if you change this to that we could include > in Debian!". > > Such quality fonts are very difficult to find and here we have a good > chance to get it right > and have the fonts included in Debian and other distributions. Sorry, but this is highly non-free : 3. The Font Software may not be modified or altered in any way, except that: (a) the Fonts may be converted from one format to another (e.g., from TrueType to Postscript), in which case the normal and reasonable distortion that occurs during such conversion shall be permitted; and (b) additional glyphs or characters may be added to the Fonts, so long as the base set of glyphs is not modified or removed. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Bug#325653: Please check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
Le mardi 30 août 2005 à 13:23 +0100, Simos Xenitellis a écrit : > >Sorry, but this is highly non-free : > > > >3. The Font Software may not be modified or altered in any way, except > >that: (a) the Fonts may be converted from one format to another (e.g., > >from TrueType to Postscript), in which case the normal and reasonable > >distortion that occurs during such conversion shall be permitted; and > >(b) additional glyphs or characters may be added to the Fonts, so long > >as the base set of glyphs is not modified or removed. > > > > > But if you read the next paragraph, it says: > > 4. If the Fonts are augmented pursuant to Section 3(b), the name used to > denote the resulting fonts set shall not include the term “STIX” or any > similar term, and any distribution or sale of the resulting fonts set > must be free of charge unless the work is distributed or sold as part of > a larger software package. > > The people behind StixFonts appear to be quite nice to adapt their > license so that it can be used in free software, so my worry is to > notice now any license issues now, rather than latter. > If they publish the fonts and we find an issue with the license then, we > effectively would have shot ourselves in the foot. As it is, the license is clearly non-free. It could become free if, for example, they let the right to modify existing glyphs if references to "stix" are removed. > I filed this issue under fontconfig because I have no clue where to > contact in the Debian structure about this. > > It would be awesome if Debian could have a look at > > http://www.stixfonts.org/user_license.html and make a statement similar to > one of the following: > a. We checked the draft license and if it stays as is, the fonts are properly > free. > b. We checked the draft license and it's not free, but if you change this to > that, it's properly free. This is exactly why I added debian-legal as a CC, but you removed it in your reply. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Bug#325653: Please check draft font license for StixFonts - is it suitably free?
Le mardi 30 août 2005 à 14:19 +0100, Simos Xenitellis a écrit : > >As it is, the license is clearly non-free. It could become free if, for > >example, they let the right to modify existing glyphs if references to > >"stix" are removed. > > > > > My belief is, this is exactly what Point 4 says. If the fonts are > "augmented" (changed; derivative work), > quit the STIX reference (or similar, like Sticks, Steex,) and provide > your own name for them. > Distribution is available as normally. No. Point 4 makes an explicit reference to section 3b to define "augmented". It means this clause is an additional restriction; it doesn't give any right for a derivative work. > >This is exactly why I added debian-legal as a CC, but you removed it in > >your reply. > > > I simply replied to the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" address. I need to > learn more on this bugs system. > I send this e-mail in personal, not to screw again the headers. Please, keep the discussion on the debian-legal mailing list (which has nothing to do with the bug tracking system) and stop answering privately. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Le vendredi 09 septembre 2005 à 00:00 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > > Yeah, but there is certainly more than a single person arguing that we > > should > > not distribute software with such licence. > There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue > clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then. Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be invoked in this case? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Le vendredi 09 septembre 2005 à 00:41 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue > > > clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then. > > Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be invoked in this case? > It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free > it's up to you explaining why. Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Linux Documentation Project License (LDPL) v2.0
Le lundi 26 septembre 2005 à 12:09 -0300, Humberto Massa a écrit : > > 2. The person making the modifications must be > > identified. > > Yellow alert -- dissident test. Marco d'Itri is extremely vocal > against the Dissident Test, but I think anonymity is necessary for > Free Software. "Identified" doesn't mean it should be identified by a real name. A pseudonym is perfectly acceptable. > IMHO they do NOT comply with the DFSG. In the case someone wants to > know, the following modifications would render this license > completely "clean" in my opinion: I disagree. This license has poor wording, but is completely free nevertheless. > Substitute "source format", in the following paragraph, by "in the > format the original author chose to write and modify the work OR in > the format the derivative work's author chose to write and modify > the work OR in any format that could demonstrably be translated back > and forth to one of those formats without loss of information." This wording is even worse than "source format", IMHO. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Is "VIGRA Artistic License" licence free and GPL-compatible ?
Le lundi 26 septembre 2005 à 12:21 -0300, Humberto Massa a écrit : > > 2. The Standard Version of the Library may be distributed as part > > of a collection of software, provided no more than a reasonable > > copying fee is charged for the software collection. This isn't free, as you can't sell the software. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Is "VIGRA Artistic License" licence free and GPL-compatible ?
Le lundi 26 septembre 2005 à 18:27 +0200, Florent Bayle a écrit : > Le Lundi 26 Septembre 2005 17:21, Humberto Massa a écrit : > [...] > > And it's not GPL-compatible at all. > > Does that means that I can't use this library in a program under GPL ? > In that case, how can some GPL'ed programs be linked with Win32 libraries > under Windows ? Because it says: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Finjan NG5000 Web Proxy
Le mercredi 09 novembre 2005 à 10:23 +, Alan Dawson a écrit : > Hi, > > A company I work for is evaluating the > > http://www.finjan.com/products/EnterpriseProducts/NG5000/ > > Web proxy device. > > When it boots it outputs to a monitor ( amongst other things ) > Debian Gnu/Linux 3.1 Vital Security tty1 > Login: > > > I can't find any mention of Debian in the documentation or their website There's no need for them to mention Debian. However, the source should be provided alongside with the device. If it isn't, and if there isn't a written offer to get this source, this is a violation of the GPL. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: contrib or main?
Le mardi 06 décembre 2005 à 18:55 +, Andrew Suffield a écrit : > main, definitely. There is a thriving community of developers of free > gameboy games intended to run on these emulators. Don't ask me why, it > makes no sense as far as I can see, but they're out there. One example > is here: > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/opengbgames > > So you don't need non-free rom images. I presume the difference is > that one maintainer knew this and the other didn't. > > (Please resist the urge to package them just to prove a point, we > already have enough stuff in the archive with no point at all; their > mere existence is sufficient) Shouldn't packages that require something outside the archive, be it free or not, be in contrib? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: pymedia DFSG compliant ?
Le vendredi 09 décembre 2005 à 23:36 +0100, Arnaud Fontaine a écrit : > Hello, > > Please Cc me because i'm not subscribe on this mailing list. I would > like to package pymedia. As i discussed before with Vedran Furac [1], > pymedia seems to include ffmpeg library, could someone tell me if this > software is DFSG compliant ? There is already a ffmpeg package in the archive; please use it instead of shipping a third ffmpeg source tree. > Pymedia can also use mp3lame or libfaad2, but it is optional, however > could pymedia be package with these features ? Lame and libfaad2 are patent-encumbered and cannot be shipped. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
gnome-vfs daemon, GPL and LGPL
Hi list, I've noticed that the gnome-vfs2 source package includes some GPL source files. These are the sources of gnome-vfs-daemon. As I understand it, the daemon is not essential for the gnome-vfs functionality, but it is spawned when some operations are requested. To what level do you think this makes the dependent applications become subject to the GPL? Is a non-GPL-compatible application making use of gnome-vfs violating the license? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: Re: gnome-themes and licensing]
Some artists unhappy with the wording of the (L)GPL are looking for free art licenses, with or without copyleft. What would your recommendations for such licenses be? The BSD or Artistic licenses look fine for the latter case, but how about the former? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom --- Begin Message --- Josselin Mouette wrote: Le samedi 15 avril 2006 à 13:16 +0100, Thomas Wood a écrit : Personally, I think it's understandable that artists may choose not to distribute their work under the (L)GPL, which is primarily a license for software. As long as the license they choose upholds the values of Free Software, I don't see it as a problem. However, I know there have been various lengthy discussions elsewhere about the status of the Creative Commons licenses, so I would like to have some advice before continuing. I think I would ask those people to wait for the 3.0 version of the Creative Commons licenses, which promise to solve a number of small issues[1] that were raised with 2.0 and which are still present in 2.5. Do you happen to know if there is any time scale for 3.0? I'd really like to get started on revamping gnome-themes, but I can't do it unless I can distribute the themes under a more appropriate license. If it's likely that a 3.0 CC license is not going to be available before 2.16, are there any other licenses that might be suitable to meet the needs of artists and distributors such as Debian? -Thomas --- End Message ---
Re: Free Art License [was: Re: [Fwd: Re: gnome-themes and licensing]]
Le vendredi 28 avril 2006 à 10:33 +1000, Andrew Donnellan a écrit : > Section 8 - French law - seems to make it non-free by DFSG standards. We've never considered choice of law as non-free. Such clauses are considered moot in most juridictions anyway. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: MPEG-4 patent license issues - libfaad* and libx264* and other codecs.
Le samedi 29 avril 2006 à 23:37 +0100, Matthew William Solloway Bell a écrit : > The packages libxine1, ffmpeg, include libfaad*, libx264* or another > codec which implement the MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Coding and Advanced > Video Coding standards. I have already stated this: Debian shouldn't have anything to do with regard to patents. We should entirely ignore them unless directly threatened, and such issues that depend so much on the country should be up to the end-user to deal with. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le jeudi 18 mai 2006 à 09:50 -0500, Anthony Towns a écrit : > > As a final note, did anyone from Debian who usually examines licences > > actually examine this one? > > Yes. At the election time, I hoped you could improve regarding communication skills, at least enough to become a project leader. This was obviously wrong. You haven't changed a bit, and such attitude may be a standard for a part of the ftp-master team, but it is not responsible behavior from the DPL. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 13:38 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > It may be three times the usual examination, but when the license is not > *clearly* suitable for the archive under consideration (non-free, in > this case), the general recommendation is to check with debian-legal, > AFAICT. But this would have meant transparency and public discussion, respecting the social contract, and so on. All these secondary issues AJ doesn't want to deal with. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 12:34 -0500, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > You are not responsible to make that decision in Debian, ftpmasters are. > Criticizing ftpmasters won't help them changing their minds. If not, it has to help changing the ftpmasters. > Thanks to everyone who worked (even privately) on this issue! No thanks to everyone who worked (only privately) on this issue. > PS: Yeah I'm a bit pissed of that we only have people criticizing when we > do great things. What great things? Taking irresponsible decisions that expose the whole project to legal actions from Sun? I don't feel like thanking anyone for that. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 22:38 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit : > Given this legal background of yours, could you please help by using that > to improve the licence, instead of just complaining about how others > handled it? Please give the right example. I'm afraid I have more interesting things to do than helping non-free software developers to get their non-free crap in the non-free archive. I don't feel like I have to justify myself, and I also think my work at Debconf has been more productive and more of a right example than that of people interested in Sun-related PRs. If Sun doesn't fix the license (and I don't think it is our work to fix their license), we should simply remove the Sun software from non-free. Well, I say "we", but in fact I should say "they", because only a small number of persons in the project have the power to do that. By the way, they also have the power to accept GNOME 2.14 in main. Don't you think that would have been more productive than accepting the Sun JVM? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 16:17 -0500, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > Good, but you shouldn't decide what others have to do. Some people are > interested in java in non-free, it's not your job to try to forbid them to > work on that. Not if it hurts the project. And it does. > The license is good enough for Debian (ftpmasters took their decisions). > There's no fix to require, but it would be good to continue working them > to enhance even more the license. Such a constructive behaviour would put > us in a good position to make sure that Sun releases java in a DFSG-free > compliant license when they will open-source it. Collaborating with Sun is a good idea for people interested in it. But those people abused of their position in the project to force the software directly into non-free, without any kind of discussion. Individual collaborations with companies like Sun can indeed benefit the project. Involving the whole project by force doesn't. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
[OT] Re: Sun responds to questions on the DLJ
Le vendredi 19 mai 2006 à 23:42 -0500, Tom Marble a écrit : > It was really great to be there... I enjoyed meeting you and many > other Debian Developers. Perhaps the biggest thing for me to grok > was that Debian isn't as much a "technical organization" as a > "social organization" that happens to produce very interesting > technical works. I find it very sad that people can get this impression after coming to Debconf. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 17:04 -0500, Raphael Hertzog a écrit : > You think it does. Others do. Others don't. I don't. Start a GR if you > think the ftpmasters are wrong. There's no point in telling everyone that > you don't agree just for the sake of it. I think this is going to happen. > How can someone force the inclusion when he's ultimately the one which > decides if the software can go in or not? Please stop playing with words. If you don't want to discuss about this matter, just don't do it. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 15:55 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > If you have a reason to believe that the ftpmasters have *misjudged* the > liability involved, This is the whole point of the discussion. > or you are approaching this as a mirror operator who is > not comfortable with the license and might have to drop non-free as a > result, it is reasonable for you to voice such concerns and try to persuade > the ftpmasters to revert the decision. But arguing that they have wronged > the project by not consulting you first is so much bullshit, because *they* > are the ones who bear the primary liability from distributing these > packages, and other developers (as opposed to mirror operators) bear none at > all. They didn't ask you because Debian is not a democracy and random > opinions on this decision *don't* matter. Indeed, they will bear the *primary* liability. However if legal action is taken against them or our mirror operators because of their decision, the whole distribution process might suffer, affecting all developers and users. By reading your email, I feel you are acknowledging the fact the ftp-masters cabal (I can't name it otherwise after seeing their behavior IRL) is treating other developers as second-class contributors who should just do as they say. Re-read the constitution. By several aspects, Debian *is* a democracy. Some developers are ignoring it, but this is something that should be fixed. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 17:03 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > This is the whole point of the discussion. > > Not that I can see. Your preceding post focused on the *who* and the *how* > of the decision, *not* on the what. This is all entangled. Had this decision been taken in a transparent way and respecting the way the project works, I would have respected it. > Er, of course we all might be affected by it, but the ftpmasters would be > affected *way* more by getting sued than *we* would be affected by their > getting sued, so I think it's ridiculously presumptuous to criticize the > ftpmasters for lack of transparency here instead of trying to support them > to make good decisions. Support them for what? Michael already answered to this question. > No, I'm acknowledging that the ftpmasters have no obligation to do as *you* > say. The ftp-masters aren't the ones trying to tell other people what to do > in this thread. They are the ones to tell other people what to do in general. They are the ones rejecting new maintainers or new packages for frivolous reasons. They are the ones preventing me from working on GNOME 2.14 because packages are stuck in NEW. They are generally considering the rest of developers like a boss with his employees. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le lundi 22 mai 2006 à 10:46 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit : > And I'm pissed of that so much seems to happen behind the scenes and I > as a normal developer who did not go to Mexico do not get the info even > if I ask, but instead people are just told to shut up. Even people in Oaxtepec have learnt that Java thing by reading the mailing lists. This is even more frustrating when the people who took this decision are a few meters away. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: [OT] Re: Sun responds to questions on the DLJ
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 21:16 -0500, Tom Marble a écrit : > > I find it very sad that people can get this impression after coming to > > Debconf. > > Realize that sometimes in e-mail it is difficult to convey subtlety or > nuanced meaning. Even though my experience with Debian is only three > years old I have found there is a great deal of elegance and > sophistication in Debian technology. My point here is that I have > developed the impression that Debian is more than technology... This is getting more and more true, and this is the point I find sad. > And I'm little surprised that you address me in the third person. Well, there are many people on mailing lists who just disregard people using the second person. > You may recall that as I was struggling to convert a video with > transcode you showed me how to do it easily with ffmpeg. I > appreciated your help with that technical question. I would > really appreciate your help with this more profound question > of what is the essence of Debian? The essence of Debian should be free software and technical excellence. I am afraid this is no more a priority for many of us. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 17:39 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit : > For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't > maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't > even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. Despite all of that, he's written a pretty good summary of the situation. You can add all personal attacks you want, that won't change. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Sun responds to questions on the DLJ
Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 à 15:01 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit : > Please note that Walter does not speak for the Debian project, and is not > a developer, maintainer, or new-maintainer applicant, just a participant > on this mailing list. Do you really need to be so contemptuous against users who make mailing lists live? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: DFSG-freeness of the "CID Font Code Public Licence"
Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with > > all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and > > distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, > > all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. > > government and other countries. > > Does this mean that I must comply with U.S. laws and regulations even if > I live in Italy? > If this is the case, I would say the clause is non-free. I don't think this is what the clause says. It is just a useless "you shall respect the law" clause. > > Any > > liti- gation relating to this License shall be subject to the > > exclusive jurisdic- tion of the Federal Courts of the Northern > > District of California (or, absent subject matter jurisdiction in such > > courts, the courts of the State of Cali- fornia), with venue lying > > exclusively in Santa Clara County, California, with the losing party > > responsible for costs, including without limitation, court costs and > > reasonable attorneys fees and expenses. > > Choice of venue, which is non-free. I still think choice of venue is, at best, unenforceable outside the US. Not everyone here find such clauses to be non-free. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 03:59 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > For those still playing, Olaf also isn't a Debian developer, doesn't > maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He's made > something like 5 posts to debian-legal, though, which I guess given Andrew > Donnellan's assertion that someone with one post ever on -legal is a > "regular participant", means Olaf is a senior analyst or something. > > As beautiful as this irony is of a non-developer asserting on a developer > list that being involved in development is irrelevant, you might want to > give some thought to the question of why a non-developer making demands of > anyone might be seen as doubly-inappropriate. How about stopping the discussions about who is a developer or not, who has the right to discuss or not, and sticking to the facts? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 06:23 +0100, Carlos Correia a écrit : > > How about stopping the discussions about who is a developer or not, who > > has the right to discuss or not, and sticking to the facts? > > What a big troll you are... > > - From all your posts, there is only one thing we got to know: your > opinion, which is, basicly, "GPL or nothing". No need to go on trolling > around... everyone has got your point. If you haven't followed the discussions, you probably don't have to tell the whole world about it. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 12:54 +0200, Eduard Bloch a écrit : > Yes. Should 100 people appear now and say the same things again, and > again, and again? WE GOT IT. WE DO NOT NEED TO READ IT AGAIN. Apparently some people haven't received it, if they need to dismiss the argument based on the fact it has been expressed by non-developers. > We are not through with this issue, and it will be solved in the near > future. What makes you believe this "will be solved in the near future"? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Sun responds to questions on the DLJ
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 19:51 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit : > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:58:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 ? 15:01 +1000, Anthony Towns a ?crit : > > > Please note that Walter does not speak for the Debian project, and is not > > > a developer, maintainer, or new-maintainer applicant, just a participant > > > on this mailing list. > > Do you really need to be so contemptuous against users who make mailing > > lists live? > > I don't believe that saying someone isn't a developer is contemptuous. The context. Remember the context? > It's very easy to fall under the misapprehension that the views of some > participants on debian-legal represent the views of the Debian project > as a whole, however, and particularly when that applies to individuals > who aren't members of the Debian project, that does a serious disservice > to people who are. Contempt and misplaced elitism against non-developers are a serious disservice to the whole project. Or, to say it with the crude words you like so much, when you're acting as an asshole, people outside the project only see the project leader is an asshole. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: DFSG-freeness of the "CID Font Code Public Licence"
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 13:13 +0200, Henning Makholm a écrit : > >> > 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with > >> > all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and > >> > distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to, > >> > all export and import control laws and regulations of the U.S. > >> > government and other countries. > It says specifically that U.S. export and import control laws are > axiomatically part of the laws one has to respect. Demanding that is a > non-free condition. No. It says that US *AND OTHER COUNTRIES* export/import laws should be respected. US laws make strictly *no sense* when you're living in another country. You are not going to respect laws and regulations from *all* countries in the world, are you? > >> Choice of venue, which is non-free. > > > I still think choice of venue is, at best, unenforceable outside the US. > > Why do you think so? Maybe I don't want to lose time to explain it to people who say: > > Not everyone here find such clauses to be non-free. > > Those who don't are wrong. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: DFSG-freeness of the "CID Font Code Public Licence"
Le mardi 06 juin 2006 à 00:30 +0200, Henning Makholm a écrit : > > US laws make strictly *no sense* when you're living in another > > country. You are not going to respect laws and regulations from > > *all* countries in the world, are you? > > Probably not, which means that I cannot accept to be bound by this > license. This is because you are misinterpreting it. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: DFSG-freeness of the "CID Font Code Public Licence"
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 11:16 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > The controls apply *in the US*. That means that, for anyone in the US, this > license imposes extralegal penalties for engaging in civil disobedience in > contravention of US embargo laws. Regardless of whether you have any > intention of risking the *legal* penalties for violating US embargo laws, I > do *not* consider it free if a copyright holder tacks its own penalties on > top of that. We are, after all, talking about laws that prohibit *the > sharing of software*, which is one of the most fundamental features of Free > Software. This indeed makes a lot of sense. Not only does the license ask to respect the law, it is terminated when you violate any kind of law or regulation. I stand corrected. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Sun clarifies intent of the DLJ
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 23:58 -0500, Tom Marble a écrit : > We have made an updated revision to the DLJ FAQ (now version 1.2) > which is publicly available at [5]. The preamble to the FAQ > has been specifically re-written to clarify the relationship > between the FAQ and the license itself. Thanks for this update, especially the preamble one. I think this addresses most if not all of the concerns regarding distributability. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Who can make binding legal agreements
Le mercredi 07 juin 2006 à 14:04 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit : > I don't understand why, as SPI President, you'd bring up concerns > regarding SPI's legal position in the middle of a thread on -devel and > -legal, without having discussed it on spi-board, having consulted SPI's > attorney as to the validity of your concerns, or having contacted me as > DPL or the archive administrators privately first, either. Well, when the DPL is ignoring the developers' opinions, why would the SPI president care of the SPI members' opinions? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Le mercredi 07 juin 2006 à 12:18 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Jeremy Hankins writes ("Non-DD's in debian-legal"):
> > I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
> > like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
> > on d-l?
>
> Actually, I think they should not participate, in general.
[snip]
> Part of the problem here is that the selection process for DD's has
> become discredited, because (a) many good and useful people making
> significant technical contributions are still stuck outside the fence
> and also (b) many less good and less useful people are on the inside
> making a mess. I don't have an easy answer to this but it's something
> we should all be thinking about.
And maybe *you* should think about it before saying non-DD contributions
are not welcome. Believe me, if they stopped participating tomorrow,
large key parts of the development would be completely stuck, and that
includes advice on licenses.
> But dismantling the or undermining the tie between political
> decisionmaking in Debian to formal membership is not the answer.
I don't see much difference between contributing to debian-legal and
contributing to packaging. The contributors to the mailing list are not
the ones making the decision. The ones making the decision are the
ftp-masters and the release managers, using *advice* from the list. Do
you need to be a DD to spot a problem with a license? No. Fortunately,
most DDs can, unlike you, accept that this is a real problem even if the
person spotting it is not a Chosen One.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Open CASCADE Technology Public License
Le jeudi 08 juin 2006 à 22:37 +0200, Aurelien Jarno a écrit : > Public license > In short, Open CASCADE Technology Public License is LGPL-like with > certain differences. You are permitted to use Open CASCADE Technology > within commercial environments and you are obliged to acknowledge its > use. You are also obliged to send your modifications of the original > source code (if you have made any) to the Initial Developer (i.e. Open > CASCADE S.A.S.). Complete text of the license is given below. The summary says the modifications should be sent to the Initial Developer (which isn't free), however nothing in the license itself says that. I think a statement acknowledging that this summary isn't binding would be a good thing to obtain. > * If you distribute or sublicense the Software (as modified by You > or on Your behalf as the case may be), You cause such Software to be > licensed as a whole, at no charge, to all third parties, under the terms > and conditions of the License, making in particular available to all > third parties the source code of the Software; No right to sell. I think this isn't good. > 7. Additional terms > > You may choose to offer, on a non-exclusive basis, and to charge a fee > for any warranty, support, maintenance, liability obligations or other > rights consistent with the scope of this License with respect to the > Software (the "Additional Terms") to the recipients of the Software. > However, You may do so only on Your own behalf and on Your sole and > exclusive responsibility. You must obtain the recipient's agreement that > any such Additional Terms are offered by You alone, and You hereby agree > to indemnify, defend and hold the Initial Developer and any Contributor > harmless for any liability incurred by or claims asserted against the > Initial Developer or any Contributors with respect to any such > Additional Terms. The indemnification clause looks scary. However it is only here to "retaliate" against false claims, so this is reasonable. I don't know about corner cases, though. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Please move DAVDSI thread to public lists
Le vendredi 28 juillet 2006 à 23:36 +0200, Pierre Habouzit a écrit : > Le ven 28 juillet 2006 23:26, Josselin Mouette a écrit : > > Le vendredi 28 juillet 2006 à 22:40 +0200, Pierre Habouzit a écrit : > > > > It would be interesting to start a formal enquiry if this applies > > > > to Bittorrent. > > > > > > it is without any doubt. as is any p2p software, ftp (that is often > > > used to distribute dvd rips e.g.), ... > > > > I'm not sure this can apply to bittorrent, as it is also, generally > > speaking, the most efficient way to distribute large files. > > it's also how I get my weekly fix (yeah, I also happen to be a > serie-addict). > > mininova.org, torrentspy.com, ... do not really list a lot of licit > content, do they ? The point is, it was not *designed* to share copyrighted content. Just like FTP or IRC. I'm not sure, but this is how I understand the law as written. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: [Debburn-devel] License of cdrkit - GPLv2 + additional restrictions
Le vendredi 15 septembre 2006 à 23:51 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > Because the hard problems that you pointed out have been fixed. We do > > no longer return "schily" author ID, etc. > > You no longer return "schily", but it seems that noone is allowed to > create a modified version of cdrkit that returns "schily" again or that > returns a SCG_AUTHOR string identical to yours. > This is a non-free restriction that is not present in the GNU GPL v2. Jörg Schilling interprets this restriction as implied by trademark law in his country. Replacing the text by a 'this software cannot return "schily" because it would infringe on Jörg Schilling's trademark' notice - or no notice at all - would seem like a fine solution. After all, it isn't allowed to display "(c) Microsoft corp." in a GPL program, but it doesn't cause any issue with the GPL. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: [Debburn-devel] License of cdrkit - GPLv2 + additional restrictions
Le dimanche 24 septembre 2006 à 23:32 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > Jörg Schilling interprets this restriction as implied by trademark law > > in his country. > > I don't know whether his interpretation is a legally valid one (IANAL), > even though I've heard of cases where courts prevented the attempt to > use an exclusive right (copyright, trademark, ...) to block > interoperability. > Here, the restriction clearly forbids creating a derivative work that is > a drop-in replacement of the original, and thus interferes with > interoperability. It does, but to what extent? AIUI wodim doesn't output this text and can be a drop-in replacement without a problem. > > Replacing the text by a 'this software cannot return > > "schily" because it would infringe on Jörg Schilling's trademark' > > notice - or no notice at all - would seem like a fine solution. > > Dropping this restriction from cdrkit would be a solution, if a > qualified lawyer confirms that we have the right to do so... I agree that we need some legal expertise to confirm that. Doesn't Debian or SPI have access to a lawyer for such cases? What is the appropriate procedure? > Anyway, let's not split hairs on the validity of Joerg Schilling's > claims: what we are talking about are clearly non-free restrictions (I > hope we can agree on that...) and must thus be solved somehow. I think the problem is more about GPL-compatibility than about DFSG-freeness. DFSG #4 already allows licenses forbidding re-use of the name or version number, and this isn't much a different case here. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Bug#389464: gnome-themes-extras: non-free Firefox icon included
Le lundi 25 septembre 2006 à 17:14 -0400, Filipus Klutiero a écrit : > Package: gnome-themes-extras > Version: 0.9.0-5 > Severity: serious > Justification: Policy 2.2.1 > > gnome-themes-extras's copyright file indicates that the package is under > the GPL, but a non-GPL Firefox icon is included in > usr/share/icons/Nuvola/scalable/apps/firefox.svg. Additionally, > gnome-themes-extras is in main and the Firefox icon is not modifiable. As the icon was made from scratch, I don't think there is any licensing issue. As the copyright states, the icon is GPL. The only issue here is a trademark one, but as the icon is used to reference firefox itself, I'd have guessed it is allowed. I'm CCing debian-legal, as this has been discussed to death and I guess someone will have more clues than myself. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: libbtctl: two questions regarding use of LGPL and GPL in source files
Le jeudi 28 septembre 2006 à 05:01 +0200, Øystein Gisnås a écrit : > I've gone through license considerations of RFP-marked package > libbtctl lately, and have questions about two concerns: > > * 7 source files are have LGPL license in their headers, but link > against bluez-libs, which is licensed under the GPL. One such file > ishttp://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/libbtctl/src/btctlimpl.c?rev=1.20&view=markup. > The overall license of libbtctl is GPL. Shouldn't the license in each > of the 7 source files be changed to GPL since they link against a > GPL'ed library? You can do that, but there is no need to do it, as there isn't any problem with mixing GPL and LGPL code. > * Some source files are LGPL and some are GPL. The end-result library > is GPL. My conclusion is that this is DFSG compatible. Am I right? The end-result is a mix of GPL and LGPL, and practically speaking it has the effects of the GPL. This is of course perfectly free. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Bug#389464: gnome-themes-extras: non-free Firefox icon included
Le jeudi 28 septembre 2006 à 15:02 +0200, Mike Hommey a écrit : > > I think I agree with that. It's not subject to the firefox copyright, > > as far as I know, and it's an honest use of the trademark. If the > > icon is modified to refer to something else, then any bug may be > > caused by the trademark, rather than the icon's copyright licence > > terminating, which is the most common trademark/licensing bug. > > Now the remaining question is: has this logo *really* been done from > scratch ? Because there is an almost official svg version of the logo > done with adobe illustrator, which is not under a free license, and if > the logo in gnome-themes-extra appears to be based on this logo, and > saved with sodipodi, there is a problem. Where can I download it? I'll check if it is the same. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Bug#389464: gnome-themes-extras: non-free Firefox icon included
Le jeudi 28 septembre 2006 à 15:37 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit : > Le jeudi 28 septembre 2006 à 15:02 +0200, Mike Hommey a écrit : > > > I think I agree with that. It's not subject to the firefox copyright, > > > as far as I know, and it's an honest use of the trademark. If the > > > icon is modified to refer to something else, then any bug may be > > > caused by the trademark, rather than the icon's copyright licence > > > terminating, which is the most common trademark/licensing bug. > > > > Now the remaining question is: has this logo *really* been done from > > scratch ? Because there is an almost official svg version of the logo > > done with adobe illustrator, which is not under a free license, and if > > the logo in gnome-themes-extra appears to be based on this logo, and > > saved with sodipodi, there is a problem. > > Where can I download it? I'll check if it is the same. I've compared the Nuvola logo to the PNG rendering available at http://www.spreadfirefox.com/node/3064 and my conclusion remains the same: this isn't the same logo. I'm no graphics expert, but I think despite the very similar look, the shapes are different enough and that it was done without using the firefox logo as a base. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
