Re: [New pine license]
Joseph Carter wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 03:25:52PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > Nor on Zips, on CD-RW, on PD, on DVD, on tape... > > Argh, you have a point---did you send them a diff with "or similar > media" inserted between the words "CD-ROM" and "collection"? I have not. I'm weary of appearing to speak for Debian on such issues. You, on the other hand, should do just that. ;-) Peter
Re: [New pine license]
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 09:49:25PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > > Nor on Zips, on CD-RW, on PD, on DVD, on tape... > > > > Argh, you have a point---did you send them a diff with "or similar > > media" inserted between the words "CD-ROM" and "collection"? > > I have not. I'm weary of appearing to speak for Debian on such > issues. You, on the other hand, should do just that. ;-) I've got my own legal mess to deal with. In some great fit of what can only be described as noble masochism, I offered to help KDE with their legal problems. I've accomplished a lot actually, done many great things with the countless and painful hours I've spent working on it. However, after all of that, I'm STILL not able to say that the problem is solved completely. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - * Overfiend ponders doing an NMU of asclock, in which he simply changes the extended description to "If you bend over and put your head between your legs, you can read the time off your assclock." Overfiend: go to bed. pgptmLCCghr7z.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [New pine license]
I'd be happy to help you with the KDE issues - it would sort of a be a way of making amends. Bruce
Re: Editor and sensible-editor
On Jun 15, Brock Rozen wrote: > To clear up any confusion, the Pine (as such, pico; I believe) license has > changed and that might make it eligible to be taken out of "non-free". A number of problems have been discussed on -legal relative to it; most notably, that you can put it on a CD-ROM but not a Jaz disc (for example), and you can't put it with commercial software. That and the "local modification" business is a bit goofy; perhaps they should consider a "you modify it, you change the name" policy (i.e. you can't call a modified Pine "UW Pine" or "UW PC/Pine"). That would at least edge it closer to DFSG-freeness (and would certainly let binaries into non-free). Chris -- = |Chris Lawrence| Visit my home page!| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/ | | || |Amiga A4000 604e/233Mhz | Visit the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5: | | with Linux/APUS 2.2.3| <*> http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/ <*> | =
Re: [New pine license]
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 03:25:52PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > > | (c) Inclusion in a CD-ROM collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or > > > | non-proprietary software for which a fee may be charged for the > > > | packaged distribution. > > > This does not allow, say, selling a linux distribution including pine > > > on disks > > Nor on Zips, on CD-RW, on PD, on DVD, on tape... > Argh, you have a point---did you send them a diff with "or similar media" > inserted between the words "CD-ROM" and "collection"? => It wouldn't help. It still contaminates other software. -- Henning Makholm
Re: NEdit Text Editor License for Review
Mark Edel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm still a bit worried that it only implicitly allows modification > and redistribution, and not explicitly. The implicit permission to redistribute is probably OK, but I find it hard to see even an implicit permission to modify. > The User shall indemnify URA and the U.S. Government for all damages, costs > or expenses, including attorney's fees, arising from the utilization of the > software, including, but not limited to, the making, using, selling or > exporting of products, processes or services derived from the > Software. So if I use the software, and the U.S. government use the software independently of me and get themselves into trouble, they can sue me to cover their expenses? -- Henning Makholm
Re: [New pine license]
On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 04:16:49PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > > This does not allow, say, selling a linux distribution including pine > > > > on disks > > > > Nor on Zips, on CD-RW, on PD, on DVD, on tape... > > > Argh, you have a point---did you send them a diff with "or similar media" > > inserted between the words "CD-ROM" and "collection"? => > > It wouldn't help. It still contaminates other software. You're right of course. Don't mind me, the heat has fried my brain. I'll have a closer look at all of this sometime after I've finished with the KDE thing. I just want to finish one huge project first (especially given the complexity of this one) -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - OH MY GOD NOT A RANDOM QUOTE GENERATOR surely you didnt think that was static? how lame would that be? :-) pgpy508aoluxM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NEdit Text Editor License for Review
On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 04:22:48PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Mark Edel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I'm still a bit worried that it only implicitly allows modification > > and redistribution, and not explicitly. > > The implicit permission to redistribute is probably OK, but I find it > hard to see even an implicit permission to modify. "...products, processes or services derived from the Software". You hold them harmless WRT derived products, so it implicitly gives you the right to make such derived products -- which I dought would hold up in a court of law. > > The User shall indemnify URA and the U.S. Government for all damages, costs > > or expenses, including attorney's fees, arising from the utilization of the > > software, including, but not limited to, the making, using, selling or > > exporting of products, processes or services derived from the > > Software. > > So if I use the software, and the U.S. government use the software > independently of me and get themselves into trouble, they can sue me to > cover their expenses? This is the United States -- you can sue anybody for anything. Then again, in this case it seems clear to me that they wouldn't have a snowballs chance in of winning. Then again, this is the United States. (But note that the packager should separately inemnify himself -- unlike the GPL, this does NOT form a waver of warranty on behalf of anybody but the US Government and URA.) -=- James Mastros -- First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment, and by then it was too late to say anything at all." -=- Nancy Lebowitz cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/ ICQ: 1293899 AIM: theorbtwo YPager: theorbtwo
Re: KDE liscence question
On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 07:54:27PM +0100, John Travers wrote: > Sorry to stretch an already 'done to death' topic out, but what about > distributing source packages like we do with Pine, does this have the same > problems. We probably could do that but it would kinda defeat the purpose and it would have to go into non-free. Given that KDE is free software and the newest version of Qt is also free, this would REALLY SUCK. I don't consider it much of a solution. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - [ ] DOGBERT [ 2 ] RICHARD STALLMAN [ 3 ] BUFFY SUMMERS [ 1 ] MANOJ SRIVASTAVA [ 4 ] NONE of the above -- Debian Project Leader 1999 ballot pgp4DCxuaCzLO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE liscence question
How about a license that borrows a trick from the LGPL: it allows distribution as a derivative work of a QPL-2.0-licensed program, and is convertible to the GPL at any time. I haven't put serious thought into this yet, but I'd think it could be made to keep the GPL-enthusiasts (me among them) happy. Thanks Bruce
Re: KDE liscence question
On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 08:13:46PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > How about a license that borrows a trick from the LGPL: it allows distribution > as a derivative work of a QPL-2.0-licensed program, and is convertible to the > GPL at any time. Yes, that's the plan. > I haven't put serious thought into this yet, but I'd think it could be made > to keep the GPL-enthusiasts (me among them) happy. CosmicRay and Crow- (two more) seem to think it's promising-sounding... First thing I did was start with the GPL and build an outline of what it does... 0. The GPL applies to the software and documentation and stuff 1. Verbatim copying is allowed, you can charge for it if you want 2. You may modify the software under these conditions: a. You keep changelogs b. The modifications are GPL c. Copyright notice is there if appropriate 3. You may distribute modifications if: a. Source is included b. You offer to supply source at cost c. You pass on an offer to supply source (non-commercial only) 4. You're only allowed to copy under the GPL's terms 5. Copying the software means you agree to the GPL's terms 6. The GPL carries to anyone you copy to, you can't change it 7. If you can't legally copy under this license, don't 8. If the author legally has to limit distribution, it's limited 9. The FSF might publish a new GPL 10. If you want to use this with non-GPL code, get permission first And I figure I can work from there without using direct language from the GPL (which the GPL prohibits...) -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - by the power of greyskull someone tell me the ban to place mrcurious: *.debian.org, *.novare.net *.debian.org. that's awesome. -- Seen on LinuxNet #linux pgpB6clWT62zt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NEdit Text Editor License for Review
James Mastros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 04:22:48PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Mark Edel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The User shall indemnify URA and the U.S. Government for all > > > damages, costs or expenses, including attorney's fees, arising > > > from the utilization of the software, including, but not limited > > > to, the making, using, selling or exporting of products, > > > processes or services derived from the Software. > > So if I use the software, and the U.S. government use the software > > independently of me and get themselves into trouble, they can sue me to > > cover their expenses? > This is the United States -- you can sue anybody for anything. Then again, > in this case it seems clear to me that they wouldn't have a snowballs chance > in of winning. Well this here is *not* the United States, and I read the quoted passage as "if you choose to use our software you must be prepared to cover all the expences WE will ever have in connection with anybody's use of our software". I'm not sure it would hold in a Danish court, but I'd have to appeal to common sense rather than the wording of the license. -- Henning Makholm
Re: NEdit Text Editor License for Review
On Wed, Jun 16, 1999 at 12:17:45AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> James Mastros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 04:22:48PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Mark Edel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > > The User shall indemnify URA and the U.S. Government for all
> > > > damages, costs or expenses, including attorney's fees, arising
> > > > from the utilization of the software, including, but not limited
> > > > to, the making, using, selling or exporting of products,
> > > > processes or services derived from the Software.
>
> > > So if I use the software, and the U.S. government use the software
> > > independently of me and get themselves into trouble, they can sue me to
> > > cover their expenses?
>
> > This is the United States -- you can sue anybody for anything. Then again,
> > in this case it seems clear to me that they wouldn't have a snowballs chance
> > in of winning.
>
> Well this here is *not* the United States, and I read the quoted
> passage as "if you choose to use our software you must be prepared
> to cover all the expences WE will ever have in connection with
> anybody's use of our software".
Hm. I kind of forgot that you can sue sombody in a Danish court for
breaking an American-writ license. In any case, the license clearly states
that you cannot hold URA or the US Government accountable for damages yadda
yadda yadda. It does not assign these damages to another (IE you), and
if there is no other reason that the damages would fall upon you
("independently of me"), then they could not collect on a suit for damages.
If, OTOH, "you" are the packager (in which case the usage is not independent
of you, which is possibly the sticking point here), then you need to write a
waver similar to the one above for your modifications -- because the
upstream-license leaves you (and possibly the Debian Project) open to suit.
-=- James Mastros
--
First they came for the fourth amendment, but I said nothing because I
wasn't a drug dealer. Then they came for the sixth amendment, but I kept
quiet because I wasn't guilty. Finally they came for the first amendment,
and by then it was too late to say anything at all."
-=- Nancy Lebowitz
cat /dev/urandom|james --insane=yes > http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/
ICQ: 1293899 AIM: theorbtwo YPager: theorbtwo
Re: Editor and sensible-editor
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 at 02:29, Chris Lawrence wrote about "Re: Editor and...": > That and the "local modification" business is a bit goofy; perhaps > they should consider a "you modify it, you change the name" policy > (i.e. you can't call a modified Pine "UW Pine" or "UW PC/Pine"). That > would at least edge it closer to DFSG-freeness (and would certainly > let binaries into non-free). One interesting idea I had (and while I'm a law student, I haven't spent more than two or three minutes on the updated Pine license) is that it might allow modified source to be distributed, where all that needs to be done (and this could be part of postinstall or whatever) is to compile it. Thus, we're not distributing modified binaries but modified source and compiling locally (and automatically). -- Brock Rozen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Director of Technical Services (410) 602-1350 Project Genesis http://www.torah.org/
