Re: Opinion about GPL-2 exception [sequitur-g2p]
Giulio Is there any way to be 100% sure? I am still waiting for a reply from upstream on this. As far as I know, the only way to be 100% sure is for it to be subject to a precedent-setting court ruling or legislation, but even that will only provide certainty for one jurisdiction - and it's generally expensive and unpredictable, so let's not go there. Do the best you can. It's all you can do. Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1u2ia0-if...@bletchley.towers.org.uk
Re: Re: Opinion about GPL-2 exception
I just read in the archive (I am not subscribed to the list) the other replies to my email. Thank you very much for your answers. Bests, Giulio. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5110314c.7080...@gmail.com
Re: Opinion about GPL-2 exception
On 13107 March 1977, Giulio Paci wrote: During a package review it came out that the software license includes this statement: Should a provision of no. 9 and 10 of the GNU General Public License be invalid or become invalid, a valid provision is deemed to have been agreed upon which comes closest to what the parties intended commercially. In any case guarantee/warranty shall be limited to gross negligent actions or intended actions or fraudulent concealment. I contacted the original author and he explained that this statement was a request of their legal department to avoid the possibility that third party can change the license of the software (I guess a misinterpretation of the GPL-2 clauses 9 and 10). Unfortunately the author is not working anymore for the copyright holder and I am having some trouble contacting someone that is allowed to remove the exception. My reading is that their legal department isn't worth any of the money they get, and they should look for a new one. Or maybe one that understands english. Reading §9 it sums down to 'FSF may publish new versions, with different version numbers. If your program specifies any later version, the later ones may be used instead'. They are using GPL-2. They do not specify any later, they even go as far and include the release date of the GPL-2 which they use. Now, §10 tells one what to do if you want to include the GPLed code into non-GPL licensssed or commercial stuff. Anyone who can read, especially when working for a legal department, should see that their whole extra text does not even remotely do anything besides showing they don't know what they do. I see no trouble in getting the software into Debian. -- bye, Joerg I'm in no condition to drive...wait! I shouldn't listen to myself, I'm drunk! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878v751wz5@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: Opinion about GPL-2 exception [sequitur-g2p]
Il 30/01/2013 13:58, MJ Ray ha scritto: Giulio Paci giuliop...@gmail.com Should a provision of no. 9 and 10 of the GNU General Public License be invalid or become invalid, a valid provision is deemed to have been agreed upon which comes closest to what the parties intended commercially. In any case guarantee/warranty shall be limited to gross negligent actions or intended actions or fraudulent concealment. [...] What is your opinion about this exception? Is this exception acceptable for a Debian package in main? I don't think it's more restrictive than what the courts should do and what's in the GPL-2 already, so I would accept it, but I'm not 100% sure. Thank you very much for your reply. It was also my opinion that the exception is not more restrictive than GPL-2, nevertheless it is confusing (and I am not a legal). Is there any way to be 100% sure? I am still waiting for a reply from upstream on this. Bests, Giulio. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/510ece3d.8060...@gmail.com
Re: Opinion about GPL-2 exception
Le mercredi 30 janvier 2013 à 02:03 +0100, Giulio Paci a écrit : During a package review it came out that the software license includes this statement: Should a provision of no. 9 and 10 of the GNU General Public License be invalid or become invalid, a valid provision is deemed to have been agreed upon which comes closest to what the parties intended commercially. In any case guarantee/warranty shall be limited to gross negligent actions or intended actions or fraudulent concealment. I contacted the original author and he explained that this statement was a request of their legal department to avoid the possibility that third party can change the license of the software (I guess a misinterpretation of the GPL-2 clauses 9 and 10). Unfortunately the author is not working anymore for the copyright holder and I am having some trouble contacting someone that is allowed to remove the exception. What is your opinion about this exception? Is this exception acceptable for a Debian package in main? It looks like complete nonsense to me. Since it starts with “should a provision be invalid or become invalid”, and these provisions have no reason to become invalid (§9 and §10 are purely informational), I don’t see it a problem, though. However, regarding compatibility with other GPL components (if there are any), I wouldn’t be so sure. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1359550365.27214.614.camel@pi0307572
Re: Opinion about GPL-2 exception [sequitur-g2p]
Giulio Paci giuliop...@gmail.com Should a provision of no. 9 and 10 of the GNU General Public License be invalid or become invalid, a valid provision is deemed to have been agreed upon which comes closest to what the parties intended commercially. In any case guarantee/warranty shall be limited to gross negligent actions or intended actions or fraudulent concealment. [...] What is your opinion about this exception? Is this exception acceptable for a Debian package in main? I don't think it's more restrictive than what the courts should do and what's in the GPL-2 already, so I would accept it, but I'm not 100% sure. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1u0xf6-0003sy...@bletchley.towers.org.uk
