Re: {debian-legal} Packaging arc
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 11:58:03PM +0200, Klaus Reimer wrote: > My problem is this sentence in the Non-Free-license of arc: > > 2) ARC may ONLY be distributed in its original, > unmodified state. Probably a dumb question, but is there any chance of finding the original author and asking for him to relicense it? > But I have to modify the source to fix a Y2K error and to do some > adjustments to allow compiling on linux. Is there any chance to do these > modifications and distribute the package in binary form in the non-free > distribution of Debian? Or is the only chance to distribute it at all to > build a "source package" with the original source code and a build-script in > it? If (2) above is a part of the license, then it sounds like a binary modified distribution is illegal by the terms of the copyright license. I'm not familiar with the rest of the license, but distributing an unmodified original with a patch script might be possible. There have been other programs with this type of restriction before. It would of course still not be free... -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Independent Rambler, Software/Standards/Freedom/Law -- http://dtype.org/ pgpEYUtR7wPqh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Changing a license of a unmaintained software
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 01:11:45PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > can fake the e-mail. A better solution is to do everything in public > so that there are lots of witnesses. If not in public, at least with cc's to debian-legal. There are more than enough witnesses here. -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Independent Rambler, Software/Standards/Freedom/Law -- http://dtype.org/ pgp82RZeTL0jK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A need for a document license
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 01:46:56PM +0100, Bernd Warken wrote: > A new kind of document license based on the GNU Free Documentation > License is needed. Who is interested? I think that a better idea might be to better define what is and isn't allowed in the "invariant sections" defined by the FDL. I'm also not a fan of the potential abuse of these sections, but still think that the FDL is a fine license assuming some policy is set forth regarding the use/abuse of these invariant sections. On the other hand, if you genuinely feel that the license is too restrictive for the end user (especially with many of the requirements in the "modifications" section), then perhaps the other extreme (simply licensing under a BSD-style license) is ok? -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Free Standards Group (freestandards.org) co-founder, SourceForge.net | core team, freedb | sysadmin, Linux Intl. creator, keyanalyze report | maintnr, *.us.pgp.net | other, see freedom/law pgpYsN0EUUJ4F.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: interpretive guidelines regarding DFSG 3, modifiability, and invariant text
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 01:37:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > to be stretching the purpose of a Secondary Section. Or is the FSF's > intent to permit people to use the GNU FDL to protect a 3-page reference > card for some program, accompanied by a 100-page novella which begins, > "It was a dark and stormy night..."?, and mark the latter Invariant so > that no one can remove it? The intent, although IMO abusable, is to give the author a chance to make a statement, but continue to allow derivative works of all the actual relevant material. This is seen in a small degree in the GPL itself, which requires a copy of itself to be included in GPL'd works, and itself includes a preamble of text that we might term 'invariant' by FDL terms. > see anything wrong with me piggybacking my very large and sorry attempt > at the Great American Novel on some documentation I may have written for, > say, the SDL library, and using the GNU FDL to do it? Agreed. Debian is in a great position of being able to attach a policy to the use of a license as well, however. FDL + some policy, whether that be Branden's suggestion, or a specific set of guidelines on what may or may not be in the invariant sections, seems a good way to go. We should be at least a little cognizant of the work that has gone into the FDL, from both a legal and philosophical standpoint. -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Free Standards Group (freestandards.org) co-founder, SourceForge.net | core team, freedb | sysadmin, Linux Intl. creator, keyanalyze report | maintnr, *.us.pgp.net | other, see freedom/law pgp8im6b9LUYg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: interpretive guidelines regarding DFSG 3, modifiability, and invariant text
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 03:53:58PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I'm cognizant of the work that has gone into it. I'm just not convinced > that it is as militantly defensive of the user's right to share > documentation as GNU GPL is for software. Interestingly, while we (the list) might mostly subjectively agree on what is abuse of the FDL on a case-by-case basis, the hard part is finding a way to put into an quantitative policy. Branden has the solution of limiting to size/percentage, which could certainly curtail some abuse. The simplicity might just make this the best way to go. Would it be a thought to distinguish between the different types of documentation? Should a man page (designed to be strictly technical/reference) be any different than files in the doc directory? Could invariants be allowed more freely if policy dictated that anything more than a paragraph or so be kept in a separate file? -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Free Standards Group (freestandards.org) co-founder, SourceForge.net | core team, freedb | sysadmin, Linux Intl. creator, keyanalyze report | maintnr, *.us.pgp.net | other, see freedom/law pgpxgn6Ztll7d.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: {debian-legal} Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:19:45AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > In any event, RMS has asserted that he is not going to change how the > Emacs Manual is licensed. We could decree that the GNU Emacs Manual, as > presently licensed under the GNU FDL, is DFSG-Free, and you *still* > wouldn't have the right-of-partial-reuse that you seek. Quote a single > sentence and be stuck with 10 single-spaced pages of the GNU Manifesto > (plus some other stuff as well). That's the license. (You could > attempt to assert a Fair Use defense in the event of such a small > quotation, however.) > > If it walks like something unfree, and quacks like something unfree, > it's probably unfree. I agree. It is somewhat easy to sympathize with the FSF in this matter, since the invariant text happens to be a free software manifesto, but what if the invariant text were something else? Do you really want to carry around invariant sections from everyone that feels like making a statement? I can imagine that if this were anything but an FSF text, people would have an entirely different sentiment. fwiw, I support Branden's ideas on this one. -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Free Standards Group (freestandards.org) co-founder, SourceForge.net | core team, freedb | sysadmin, Linux Intl. creator, keyanalyze report | maintnr, *.us.pgp.net | other, see freedom/law pgpz0Dm6nlcfd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: #144984
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 11:34:05AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > A license which forbade selling the software by itself, but permitted > selling it in aggregate with other software, would abide by the letter > of the DFSG. Of course, in the real world no one licenses software this > way because it's trivially easy to aggregate the software. I doubt the authors of this license indended this, but you're right, that is the letter of the law. My reading of the DFSG is that (1) referes to any redistribution of the software, to include redistribution with other complete programs, or just the trivially added things that might go into a single software "distribution". If the authors of this license don't want their software redistributed commercially, then in my mind it fails. Of course, this is up to Debian to decide. It is, after all, your DFSG. I'd shy away from discussion about how we can "trick" the authors of this license though by trivially including other code on the CD. If they don't want their software free, then so be it... FWIW, This particular king of clause comes up _consistently_ on the OSI mailing list and is systematically rejected. -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Independent Rambler, Software/Standards/Freedom/Law -- http://dtype.org/ pgp5kktURDoW9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: User's thoughts about LPPL
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 05:47:20PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > These are nice goals, but they do not make free software. Debian's > definition of free software means that it satisfies the DFSG. > Whatever your motives may be, if your program doesn't satisfy the > DFSG, then it doesn't go in main. And that is what it all comes down to. I also have sympathy for some of the goals of non-free licenses, but they are just that... non-free. In all of the work people have done on the LSB, we made decisions early on to enforce the trademark of the name "LSB" against a written specification, rather than to make portions of software non-free. (Given that most of the software was already written and free, it also wasn't much of a choice.) -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Independent Rambler, Software/Standards/Freedom/Law -- http://dtype.org/ pgpKtm7tAhLfG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: file renaming requirements - any prior art?
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 10:37:21AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: > really the free source), and any command-name limitation should only > be done via trademark. IANAL, TINLA. Trademark protection can sometimes be enforced without the actual filing of a trademark application, depending on use, although that point is moot to this discussion. Whether or not a trademark on a filename is enforceable is arguable, although in my non-professional opinion, if a user reasonably expected that a particular command line would call a particular program, and another program were substituted instead, it might constitute the exact type of consumer confusion that trademark law is designed to prevent. I'd venture that a command-line program called 'oracle', designed to run a database, would be challenged pretty quickly. (And I wouldn't bet money on the 'new' oracle.) I think Debian needs to think about a couple of things: (1) If there were a trademark on a filename, would you agree to use another name? (2) Would this make the copyright non-free? You would have the separation you're looking for, but still wouldn't necessarily have the right to use the same filename. -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Independent Rambler, Software/Standards/Freedom/Law -- http://dtype.org/ pgpZbUbW7JLFt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MP3 decoders' non-freeness
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:49:51PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote: > A long while ago Adrian Bunk filed bugs such as #65797 saying that MP3 > decoders, in addition to encoders, were patented. Discussion at that > time went along the lines of "Prove it," and nothing ever happened. No > mp3 decoder was ever moved to non-free, to the best of my knowledge. > > Has there been any resolution of this issue? Is it safe to close these > bugs? There most certainly are patents on mp3. I won't comment on enforceability or relevance. Regardless, the burden of proof is on the violator of the patents, as they have already been granted. http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Independent Rambler, Software/Standards/Freedom/Law -- http://dtype.org/ pgpY04b7XT3W9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MP3 decoders' non-freeness
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 09:42:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Oh, sorry, my bad I wasn't paying attention. Debian includes mp3 decoders > too; there's been rumours and mild scaremongering about whether mp3 > decoding has been patented, but nothing definite. OTOH, there has been It is definite. mp3 decoders also require licensing. Argue over whether or not the patents are valid, but they do exist, which puts the burden of proof on the infringer. http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Independent Rambler, Software/Standards/Freedom/Law -- http://dtype.org/ pgpJxZOPkSX09.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MP3 decoders' non-freeness
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 12:53:03PM -0500, David Starner wrote: > Thompson claims they require licensing. The questions I've heard are not > over whether the patents are valid, but whether they cover decoding, an > issue which would be up to a civil court, who would ask for predominance of > evidence. In a court case that would call into question one of Thompson's biggest revenue streams, you could expect the big guns. A large number of companies, with a large number of corporate/patent lawyers, already pay Thompson royalties, which means that they at least thought the situtation was insufficiently clear that legal fees weren't merited. I agree that it may not be fair, but without tens of thousands of dollars (us), you wouldn't even be able to get through the pre-trial motions. :/ The actual suit will be in the six to seven figure range. I know a lot of companies that get by on flimsy patents because their licensing terms come in just lower than even a successful law suit would cost a would-be licensee. Nobody that has been in a patent lawsuit will ever question the real value of Xiph and their excellent work. :) (not that anyone else would either) -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Independent Rambler, Software/Standards/Freedom/Law -- http://dtype.org/ pgpSVlzYsMfBa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: one liner license, sufficient for DFSG?
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 08:17:08AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > --*snip*-- > > You can use this code in whatever way you want, as long as you don't > > try to claim you wrote it. > > --*snip*-- > > That works out to be public domain essentially. It would be nice if software > developers would be less cavalier with their code. You could actually sue > him if his software failed to compile. Yep, also this one-liner incorrectly says "use" where it should include copy/modify/redistribute. I think that technically this doesn't even grant the right to copy, only to "use". The fact that he mentioned code implies that this includes a source copy license, but we don't know for sure. This author should really be contacted and asked to X11 whatever this was. -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Independent Rambler, Software/Standards/Freedom/Law -- http://dtype.org/ pgptN0cgIb4DF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: {debian-legal} Re: APSL 2.0
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:10:34AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > out of networked environments. If they succeed in promulgating these > ideas, they'll hinder growth of networked systems. Perhaps a good way I could agree with you, except that networked systems can't really be hindered too much now. They are pretty much a given. Apple isn't so much discriminating against a use model, as discriminating against _all_ use, in either a networked or distribution model, without distributing source. Think of it as discriminating against the business model of 'service', rather than the use of networked software. They're simply cutting off the common GPL bypass these days, which basically lets ASPs, web services, etc basically use GPL'd software with no source releases (since no binaries are ever 'distributed' as such). Since most of the net seems to be moving towards service models and away from distribution models, this is merely a licence trying to catch up. -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Independent Rambler, Software/Standards/Freedom/Law -- http://dtype.org/ pgpn6x7vMKXTr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > === 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. > > [ ] 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. > > [ X ] 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. > > [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian > Constitution as of the date on this survey. > > === CUT HERE === [ X ] I'm on the SPI Board, and do have a significant interest in free software law. I've never cared for some of the provisions of the FDL. I've been quiet up to now on this list, but I don't think that anything I say right now will add to what has already been discussed. -drew -- M. Drew Streib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Independent Rambler, Software/Standards/Freedom/Law -- http://dtype.org/ pgpDXuaSazuWr.pgp Description: PGP signature
