Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub

On 2004-09-22 23:22:45 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A trademark license *has* to prohibit such things. Prohibiting misrepresenting the origin of the *logo* doesn't suffice. We have to require that the logo, and anything "confusingly similar", is not used to identify thi

Re: Open Software License v2.1

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 10:02:10PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > It's not a complete defense, by the way - a smart patent owner would > just try to sue everybody else *but* the copyright holder who uses the > code instead. The OSL 2.1's clause causes termination if you allege patent violation in

Re: Open Software License v2.1

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 04:06:18PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > I'm not sure it is, in this example. Well. It's important because > this is all part of a crusade against software patents taken too far > into a crusade against patents which happen to apply to software. I understand what y

Re: Open Software License v2.1

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 10:27:11AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Before Debian considers software free, we require proper licenses for > actively enforced patents; any claim of infringement would make the > software non-DFSG, even before a lawsuit is resolved. This isn't established. If Microsoft

Re: Open Software License v2.1

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 05:22:21PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > However, if he distributed under a non-patent-defense license, it would > *still* be non-free. So I'm not clear on how the so-called patent-defence > clause makes any difference here. It wouldn't be: > Right but if the paten

Re: Open Software License v2.1

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 11:36:54PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 07:09:21AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 11:44:13AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > Bob creates Emacs, under a "claim patent infringement in this work > > > > and lose your lic

Re: CeCILL again...

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 11:46:17AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Your requirement that you be able to understand the license terms is > perfectly reasonable. That does not mean Debian should have that > requirement. Consider this: it is also a perfectly reasonable Debian should not require that

Re: Clarifying non-free parts of the GNU FDL

Roger Leigh wrote: > During discussion with gimp-print upstream about the potential > problems with the GNU FDL and the possibility of relicensing it, a > number of issues have cropped up, which I'd be grateful if you could > assist with. I have pointed to Manoj's draft position statement as a >

Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub

Josh Triplett wrote: > Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> Josh Triplett wrote: >>>Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict >>>the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions. >> >> Only to the extent of prohibiting misrepresentation of other works, >> projects

Re: GFDL and Debian Logo

Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Perhaps I'm being thick here, but what legal difference does the > language make? Doesn't the German Wikipedia use the same licence as > the English Wikipedia, and aren't they both accessible in Germany? Hosting location and intended audience, I assume. Being "acces

Re: Open Software License v2.1

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 07:09:21AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 11:44:13AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > Bob creates Emacs, under a "claim patent infringement in this work > > > and lose your license to it" license, which includes GIF decoding. > > > > > > Joe derive

Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 06:22:45PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Josh Triplett wrote: > > > First of all, even if it is the case that we can't offer a DFSG-free > > license for the logo without allowing it to become "diluted", then that > > does not exempt it from being DFSG-free. I believe th

Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub

Josh Triplett wrote: > First of all, even if it is the case that we can't offer a DFSG-free > license for the logo without allowing it to become "diluted", then that > does not exempt it from being DFSG-free. I believe the suggested > licenses were very clearly non-DFSG-free. > > Second, I'm not

Re: Nathanael - your mail is broken [MAILER-DAEMON@zewt.org: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender]

Glenn Maynard wrote: > Nathanael, my CC to you bounced, because your ISP is using a bullshit > spam filter. I'm only forwarding this to make sure that you're aware > that you're losing legitimate mail because of it. Yes, I'm in the process of getting a new account. -- This space intentionally l

Re: Open Software License v2.1

Glenn Maynard wrote: > (Unrequested CC sent; it just seems like a good idea when sending mails > concerning possible MUA problems ...) > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:16:51PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> You haven't been reading my postings? > > I doubt anyone is reading all of your postings

Re: Open Software License v2.1

Glenn Maynard wrote: > Ick. A, B, C, X, VD, MSC, π. I find these hypotheticals to be a lot > easier to parse and process if I give these people names and use actual > projects to put things in perspective with one another ... > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:08:04PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:

Re: Open Software License v2.1

Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It think it's free to terminate a public license completely and > universally as soon as anybody brings and wins any suit against any > party that claims that the work using some patented technology. Still fails the Tentacles of Evil test, this

Re: Open Software License v2.1

MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-09-21 23:16:47 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> For what it's worth, I agree entirely. No software patent is >> legitimate, and clauses stating that you can't continue to use a piece >> of Free Software while claiming that software infringes your pate

Re: Open Software License v2.1

Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:55:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> > Consider a copyright-only case: Alice and Bob each release some >> > software under a copyleft, with a clause mentioning that any lawsuit >> > claiming copyright infringement on the work or any derivative

Re: Open Software License v2.1

Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> PS You know, I just thought of something. If these clauses cancelled > >> the copyright license to *everybody* as soon as *anybody* *wins* a >

Re: Open Software License v2.1

Brian Thomas Sniffen writes: > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > The situation the clause aims at is one where a patent owner seeks to > > gain a monopoly on the original author's work by preventing everybody > > else - including the original author himself - from using it. > >

Re: Open Software License v2.1

> >> > If the software is not free, regardless of the copyright license, > >> > then the reason it's not free is not the copyright license. Thus, > >> > this scenario has no bearing on the freeness of the license. > >> I don't think that's true. Certainly, I see no reason it should be > >> accep

Re: Open Software License v2.1

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> PS You know, I just thought of something. If these clauses cancelled >> the copyright license to *everybody* as soon as *anybody* *wins* a >> patent lawsuit over the software, I wouldn't mind them

Re: Open Software License v2.1

Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes: > >> Can you find anything in Debian's devotion to its users and free >> software, however, which enjoins the project to join in this crusade, >> not merely by lobbying governments but also by permitting restrictions >> on th

Re: GFDL and Debian Logo

Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS schrieb: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> The Debian Open Use Logo is not compatible with the GFDL. If fair use >> is really that limited in Germany, then the German wikipedia is going >> to have to purge all logos. I doubt that any have anything >> approaching a free

Re: Open Software License v2.1

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > If the software is not free, regardless of the copyright license, >> > then the reason it's not free is not the copyright license. Thus, >> > this scenario has no bearing on the freeness of the license. >> >> I don't think that's true. Certainly, I

Re: CeCILL again...

Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:19:27AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: >>Glenn Maynard wrote: >>>who should not have to be bound >>>by a text in a language that they don't understand properly. >>>(The only solution available to me, in that situation, is to not touch the >>>sof

Re: CeCILL again...

Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:29:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >>Agreed; I think at a minimum we need either a legally-binding license in >>English, or an English translation vouched for by someone debian-legal >>subscribers are willing to trust, to be able to make any deter

Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 06:41:29PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Does it qualify as DFSG-free if you give it a free copyright licence > without granting any kind of trademark licence? Trademark license is orthogonal to copyright license. Trademark laws are more like truth in advertising la

Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub

Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > First of all, even if it is the case that we can't offer a DFSG-free > license for the logo without allowing it to become "diluted", then that > does not exempt it from being DFSG-free. I believe the suggested > licenses were very clearly non-DFSG-free. Does

Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub

Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Josh Triplett wrote: >>Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict >>the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions. > > Only to the extent of prohibiting misrepresentation of other works, > projects, and organizations as belongi

Re: GFDL and Debian Logo

Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The Debian Open Use Logo is not compatible with the GFDL. If fair use > is really that limited in Germany, then the German wikipedia is going > to have to purge all logos. I doubt that any have anything > approaching a free license. > > As a comparison, the

Re: Bug#265352: grub: Debian splash images for Grub

Matthew Garrett wrote: > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Both of these licenses seem clearly non-free to me, since they restrict >>the uses of unmodified or "insufficiently different" versions. > > Trademark law limits what can be done here. Granting a trademark license > (explicitly or

Re: Open Software License v2.1

Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 09:44:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >>>: A writes some software, and GPLs it. B claims that the software is >>>: on his hard drive, and sues A for that drive. B wins, and now only >>>: B can

Re: Open Software License v2.1

> > GPL 7 isn't relevant here. GPL 7 is for cases where someone else holds > > the patent. [Note the uses of the phrase "imposed on you" and the phrase > > "do not excuse you".] > > > > Try GPL 5 and 6, instead. On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 10:39:38AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Right. So I

Re: Open Software License v2.1

Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > PS You know, I just thought of something. If these clauses cancelled > the copyright license to *everybody* as soon as *anybody* *wins* a > patent lawsuit over the software, I wouldn't mind them so much. That would spectacularly fail the tentac

Re: Open Software License v2.1

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > The claim that copyleft software isn't free is nonsense. > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 09:44:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Yes, but only you've made that claim. I certainly haven't, and I >> invite y

Re: Open Software License v2.1

Brian Thomas Sniffen writes: > Can you find anything in Debian's devotion to its users and free > software, however, which enjoins the project to join in this crusade, > not merely by lobbying governments but also by permitting restrictions > on the behavior of licensees of allegedly free software

Re: missing licenses in gnulib

On 2004-09-22 14:58:24 +0100 Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ putting debian-legal on CC ] For what end? There's also the problem with non-free documentation in "doc" directory (3 files), but I'm aware that for the FSF freedom isn't important for documentation so I'm ommiting the

Re: Open Software License v2.1

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:33:17PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> real invention, whether implemented in software or hardware. The RSA >> cryptosystem is a decent example of this. >> >> So there are some legitimate patents, though they're probabl

missing licenses in gnulib

[ putting debian-legal on CC ] Hi! I'm trying to prepare a Debian package of gnulib, but there seems to be some legal problems we should sort out first. According to the COPYING file, we can't assume GPL for any of the files in the source tree. This is a problem for files that are not explicit

Re: Open Software License v2.1

Nathanael Nerode wrote: Consider the Malicious Software Corporation (MSC). Consider work X by author Joe. MSC holds patent A covering X and patent B covering something else. Valiant Defender (VD) holds patent C covering X. Normally, MSC can sue any user of X for infringing patent A. With the

Re: GFDL and Debian Logo

Hendrik Brummermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, I pasted the mail into the subject line by accident. Here is a > secondy try: > > Hi, > > there is a discussion in the German Wikipedia whether the Debian Open > Use Logo may be > subjected

Re: Open Software License v2.1

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:02:49PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Word games. "If you license something then you lose the ability to sue > people for acting in the manner you licensed them to do". Don't waste > my time; you know full well that's irrelevant. How is that irrelevant? If "agreement

Re: Open Software License v2.1

Andrew Suffield writes: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 07:29:10PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > > If you distribute a program under the GPL, you lose most or all of > > your ground to claim damages in court on the basis that the program > > infringes your patent or copy rights. (GPL sections 5, 6, et

Re: Open Software License v2.1

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 11:58:04AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Licensor brings suit against you alleging massive patent infringement > on your part. The chances of you successfully defending them all are > slim. Your choices are effectively settlement, or patent counter-suit > that kills your l

Re: Open Software License v2.1

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 11:44:13AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Bob creates Emacs, under a "claim patent infringement in this work > > and lose your license to it" license, which includes GIF decoding. > > > > Joe derives XEmacs from that work. This inherits, among many other > > things, GIF

Re: Clarifying non-free parts of the GNU FDL

On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 06:32:17PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 18:15, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 07:09:18PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > > > Specifically, would it be possible to > > > 1) Allow storage/transmission on encrypted filesystems/links to > >

Re: Open Software License v2.1

On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 07:29:10PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > If you distribute a program under the GPL, you lose most or all of > your ground to claim damages in court on the basis that the program > infringes your patent or copy rights. (GPL sections 5, 6, et al.) Word games. "If you license

Re: Open Software License v2.1

On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 09:41:01PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:06:12AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 02:43:13PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > > Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 04:03:18PM +0100, Matthew Garre

Re: Open Software License v2.1

On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 09:13:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:55:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > > Consider a copyright-only case: Alice and Bob each release some > > > software under a copyleft, with a clause mentioning that any lawsuit > > > claiming copyrigh

Re: Open Software License v2.1

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 09:04:29AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > >Bob creates Emacs, under a "claim patent infringement in this work > >and lose your license to it" license, which includes GIF decoding. > > Lose your patent licence or all licence? Both patent and copyright. -- Glenn Maynard

Re: Open Software License v2.1

On 2004-09-21 23:16:47 +0100 Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For what it's worth, I agree entirely. No software patent is legitimate, and clauses stating that you can't continue to use a piece of Free Software while claiming that software infringes your patent are both Free and desi

Re: Open Software License v2.1

On 2004-09-22 02:13:04 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bob creates Emacs, under a "claim patent infringement in this work and lose your license to it" license, which includes GIF decoding. Lose your patent licence or all licence? -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any gr

Re: GFDL and Debian Logo

On 09/22/04 01:57:40, Hendrik Brummermann wrote: there is a discussion in the German Wikipedia whether the Debian Open Use Logo may be subjected to the GFDL. I'm not a lawyer and I don't speak for Debian, but I don't think that you can re-l

Re: GFDL and Debian Logo

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 07:57:40AM +0200, Hendrik Brummermann wrote: > there is a discussion in the German Wikipedia whether the Debian Open > Use Logo may be > subjected to the GFDL. The German Wikipedia does not accept any content > not licensed

GFDL and Debian Logo

Sorry, I pasted the mail into the subject line by accident. Here is a secondy try: Hi, there is a discussion in the German Wikipedia whether the Debian Open Use Logo may be subjected to the GFDL. The German Wikipedia does not accept any content