Bug#361846: [Pkg-openldap-devel] Bug#361846: non-free license for core.schema
Hi *, On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:29:51AM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: If this file is a non-copyrightable interface definition, the bug here is the presence of a copyright notice and license statement where there should be none. ITS#4693 in the OpenLDAP ITS system. In the logs for that issue, Kurt commented that OpenLDAP is not going to change that as it is in line with their policy - to quote the license of the origin of everything. I do not feel that we (the Debian maintainers) should remove that copyright notice, but I think it would be okay to clarify the relevance of that license. From the license of the RFC: ## others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it ## or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published ## and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any ## kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are ## included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this From that I read that we actually have to include that license. Therefore I'd like to propose to add something along the lines of: # The definitions in this file are derived from internet RFCs which # are made available by the Internet Society under the following # license: ## This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to ## others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it Which also is not as easy to follow as I'd like it to be. Other suggestions, comments? Greetings Torsten signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#361846: [Pkg-openldap-devel] Bug#361846: non-free license for core.schema
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: severity 361846 serious Bug#361846: invalid assertion of copyright on contents of core.schema Severity set to `serious' from `important' tags 361846 etch-ignore Bug#361846: invalid assertion of copyright on contents of core.schema There were no tags set. Tags added: etch-ignore thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#361846: non-free license for core.schema
severity 361846 important retitle 361846 invalid assertion of copyright on contents of core.schema thanks Plus, this is an interface specification if I've ever seen one, and interface specifications are not copyrightable under US law. I agree, but was hesitant to assert this without some corroboration. If this file is a non-copyrightable interface definition, the bug here is the presence of a copyright notice and license statement where there should be none. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#361846: non-free license for core.schema
Package: openldap2.2 Severity: serious The license for the file core.schema says: ## Portions Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997-2003). ## All Rights Reserved. ## ## This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to ## others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it ## or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published ## and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any ## kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are ## included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this ## document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing ## the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other ## Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of ## developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for ## copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be ## followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than ## English. ## ## The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be ## revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. ## ## This document and the information contained herein is provided on an ## AS IS basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING ## TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ## BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION ## HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ## MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The ftpmasters have recently rejected a package that contains another schema file with identical license text, and there was no obvious opposition to that decision on Debian legal [0], so the current understanding seems to be that this license is not free. I don't necessarily agree with all that, but this bug can serve as an incentive to getting this issue resolved. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/threads.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#361846: non-free license for core.schema
Am Montag, den 10.04.2006, 19:39 +0200 schrieb Peter Eisentraut: The ftpmasters have recently rejected a package that contains another schema file with identical license text, and there was no obvious opposition to that decision on Debian legal [0], so the current understanding seems to be that this license is not free. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/threads.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00051.html ff. -- Noèl Köthe noel debian.org Debian GNU/Linux, www.debian.org signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Bug#361846: non-free license for core.schema
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 08:16:46PM +0200, Noèl Köthe wrote: The ftpmasters have recently rejected a package that contains another schema file with identical license text, and there was no obvious opposition to that decision on Debian legal [0], so the current understanding seems to be that this license is not free. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/threads.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00051.html ff. That whole discussion is silly. I am not a lawyer but I for me it looks like you are not allowed to modify the RFC document which is fine in this context. It's just that we use the schema documented in the RFC. Greetings Torsten signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#361846: non-free license for core.schema
Am Montag, den 10.04.2006, 21:19 +0200 schrieb Torsten Landschoff: The ftpmasters have recently rejected a package that contains another schema file with identical license text, and there was no obvious opposition to that decision on Debian legal [0], so the current understanding seems to be that this license is not free. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/threads.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00051.html ff. That whole discussion is silly. I am not a lawyer but I for me it looks like you are not allowed to modify the RFC document which is fine in this context. It's just that we use the schema documented in the RFC. We tried to clarify this point on debian-legal without success. The same license was rejected by ftp-master so there is something wrong which we want to document. -- Noèl Köthe noel debian.org Debian GNU/Linux, www.debian.org signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Bug#361846: non-free license for core.schema
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 09:19:31PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote: On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 08:16:46PM +0200, Noèl Köthe wrote: The ftpmasters have recently rejected a package that contains another schema file with identical license text, and there was no obvious opposition to that decision on Debian legal [0], so the current understanding seems to be that this license is not free. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/threads.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00051.html ff. That whole discussion is silly. I am not a lawyer but I for me it looks like you are not allowed to modify the RFC document which is fine in this context. It's just that we use the schema documented in the RFC. Which means we should be shipping a functional schema, but not the copyrighted RFC. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
