DFSG And Trademarks
(please cc: me, if you would) I've been thinking about this for a while, and the more I think about it, the more it puzzles me. So I thought I'd get an expert opinion, or at least a few inexpert but loudly affirmed ones... :-) I'm in the process of packaging CUPS, or the Common UNIX Printing System. It's at www.cups.org. Linux Today readers can read the two editorials on "A Bright New Future For Printing On Linux" or some such. The code itself is GPL, so DFSG compliance isn't a problem. However, the vendors have trademarked the words "CUPS", "Common UNIX Printing System", and possibly a few others I'm forgetting. The license page (http://www.cups.org/LICENSE.html) has this gem: "Also, since we have trademarked the Common UNIX Printing System, CUPS, and CUPS logo, you may not release a derivative product using those names without permission from Easy Software Products." I asked for a clarification from them, and got a response that talked about "configuration" of the source being permitted. On one level, that could mean that they're giving you permission to run './configure'; OTOH, I was talking about the possible need to change CUPS to conform to Debian policy, which could get into some major "configuration". They have promised to clarify the license, but they haven't so far. Practically speaking, there isn't much need to modify the code base to CUPS itself. It has a modular design, and any GPLed drivers, backends, etc. that anyone else writes could be packaged separately to avoid legal namespace pollution. The major needs would be for things like bug fixes, policy adjustments, and the like. As long as you assign them copyright to your code, they seem like they'll incorporate fundamental code changes; they also have what they called a "bazaar" for changes and add-ons that weren't accepted into the main package for whatever reason. To avoid confusion in the ranks, I was planning to use a package name of "cups" (or, as is possible, something like "libcups0", "libcups-devel", "cups", and "cups-doc"). Is this wise? If not, what should I do? Is more clarification needed?
Re: DFSG And Trademarks
On Jun 18, Jeff Licquia wrote: > The code itself is GPL, so DFSG compliance isn't a problem. However, > the vendors have trademarked the words "CUPS", "Common UNIX Printing > System", and possibly a few others I'm forgetting. The license page > (http://www.cups.org/LICENSE.html) has this gem: > > "Also, since we have trademarked the Common UNIX Printing System, > CUPS, and CUPS logo, you may not release a derivative product using > those names without permission from Easy Software Products." > > I asked for a clarification from them, and got a response that talked > about "configuration" of the source being permitted. On one level, > that could mean that they're giving you permission to run > './configure'; OTOH, I was talking about the possible need to change > CUPS to conform to Debian policy, which could get into some major > "configuration". They have promised to clarify the license, but they > haven't so far. This is also an issue with other things, like AbiWord. The abiword package in unstable is actually "AbiWord Personal"; AbiSource provides binary Debian packages (via alien, bleech) for Alpha and Intel (which leaves our other three architectures out in the cold). Who does the building determines what the program can be called, which seems rather contrary to the spirit of the DFSG, if nothing else... Of course, I can build an identical CD image to the Official (Debian) CD, but I'm wouldn't be allowed to call it the Official CD. So even within Debian there are issues. Chris -- = | Chris Lawrence | Get your Debian 2.1 CD-ROMs | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>|http://www.lordsutch.com/| | | | | Grad Student, Pol. Sci. | Do you want your bank to snoop? | |University of Mississippi|http://www.defendyourprivacy.com/| =
Re: DFSG And Trademarks
On Friday 18 June 1999, at 0 h 41, the keyboard of Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The code itself is GPL, so DFSG compliance isn't a problem. However, > the vendors have trademarked the words "CUPS", "Common UNIX Printing > System", and possibly a few others I'm forgetting. The license page > (http://www.cups.org/LICENSE.html) has this gem: > > "Also, since we have trademarked the Common UNIX Printing System, > CUPS, and CUPS logo, you may not release a derivative product using > those names without permission from Easy Software Products." I believe that several packages in main have a licence which forces any modified version to use another name. (TeX is a typical example.) This is not itself a violation of DFSG (it is even explicitely authorized in article 4), IMHO. In practice, if you fork and start a new CUPS, with the same code base, you will not want to use the same name, anyway.
IBM public license
According to a slashdot comment, a new version of Jikes will be released soon under the IBM Public License v1.0 (http://www.research.ibm.com/dx/srcDownload/license.html); this license is already used for the IBM Open Visualization Data Explorer (http://www.research.ibm.com/dx/). Can someone go over this license please and look if it changes things for Jikes' status (the current Jikes license was deemed non-free for its patent-related clauses) please? Ray -- UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we tried to cheat them out of and didn't manage. See also DISHONESTY, SNEAKY, UNDERHAND and JUST LUCKY I GUESS. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Re: DFSG And Trademarks
Change the name on your package just enough to avoid all of the trademarks, because we _will_ have to fix bugs before they do, etc. Thanks Bruce
Re: IBM public license
I'm told the visual explorer license was rushed out and won't be the last word. Bruce
XForms GPL exception...
I'm writing the author of xfmix to request an exception for xforms, but I'm not clear on a point of our suggested exception. + You may link this software with XForms (Copyright (C) by T.C. Zhao and + Mark Overmars) and distribute the resulting binary, under the + restrictions in clause 3 of the GPL, even though the resulting binary is + not, as a whole, covered by the GPL. (You still need a separate license + to do so from the owner(s) of the copyright for XForms, however). If a + derivative no longer requires XForms, you may use the unsupplemented GPL + as its license by deleting this paragraph and therefore removing this + exemption for XForms. "(You still need a separate license to do so from the owner(s) of the copyright for XForms, however)" seems to me to say that you need a separate license from the xforms people to distribute the binary regardless of the exception. Is that right? That would mean that we need a separate license from the xforms people. - Tom
Re: XForms GPL exception...
Oops, forgot to say to CC me on replies... I'm not subscribed. - Tom
Re: XForms GPL exception...
Tom Lear wrote: > I'm writing the author of xfmix to request an exception for xforms, but > I'm not clear on a point of our suggested exception. > > + You may link this software with XForms (Copyright (C) by T.C. Zhao and > + Mark Overmars) and distribute the resulting binary, under the > + restrictions in clause 3 of the GPL, even though the resulting binary is > + not, as a whole, covered by the GPL. (You still need a separate license > + to do so from the owner(s) of the copyright for XForms, however). If a > + derivative no longer requires XForms, you may use the unsupplemented GPL > + as its license by deleting this paragraph and therefore removing this > + exemption for XForms. > > "(You still need a separate license to do so from the owner(s) of the > copyright for XForms, however)" seems to me to say that you need a > separate license from the xforms people to distribute the binary > regardless of the exception. Is that right? That would mean that we need > a separate license from the xforms people. > - Tom Anyone can feel free to correct me on this... Now's the time to do it! I interpret that sentence as clarifying the point that the binary is linked to a library, and thus we need `permission' to distribute the part of the binary that is XForms code. We have that permissiom from the XForms license: Permission to use, copy, and distribute this software in its entirety for non-commercial purposes and without fee, is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies and their documentation. If you intend to use xforms commercially, this includes in-house use and consulting, you must contact the authors at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a license arrangement. Running a publicly available freeware that requires xforms is not considered commercial use. This software is provided "as is" without expressed or implied warranty of any kind. You may not "bundle" and distribute this software with commercial systems and/or other distribution media without prior consent of the authors. Since xfmix is `publicly available freeware' anyone is free to use, copy, and distribute it, including the linked XForms code, even for use by a business since that's not considered commercial use. Peter
Re: XForms GPL exception...
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > Tom Lear wrote: > > > I'm writing the author of xfmix to request an exception for xforms, but > > I'm not clear on a point of our suggested exception. > > > > + You may link this software with XForms (Copyright (C) by T.C. Zhao and > > + Mark Overmars) and distribute the resulting binary, under the > > + restrictions in clause 3 of the GPL, even though the resulting binary is > > + not, as a whole, covered by the GPL. (You still need a separate license > > + to do so from the owner(s) of the copyright for XForms, however). If a > > + derivative no longer requires XForms, you may use the unsupplemented GPL > > + as its license by deleting this paragraph and therefore removing this > > + exemption for XForms. > > > > "(You still need a separate license to do so from the owner(s) of the > > copyright for XForms, however)" seems to me to say that you need a > > separate license from the xforms people to distribute the binary > > regardless of the exception. Is that right? That would mean that we need > > a separate license from the xforms people. > > - Tom > > Anyone can feel free to correct me on this... Now's the time to > do it! > > I interpret that sentence as clarifying the point that the binary > is linked to a library, and thus we need `permission' to > distribute the part of the binary that is XForms code. We have > that permissiom from the XForms license: Well I think that sentence confuses things, specifically the word "separate" which to me implies separate from the licence that xforms is distributed under. Maybe somthing like "(You already have permission to distribute the binary form of xforms from the xforms licence)". But I think I'd prefer the line be removed entirely. - Tom PS: Please cc me, I'm not subscribed.
Re: XForms GPL exception...
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > Off the debian-legal list now... > > Tom Lear wrote: > > > Well I think that sentence confuses things, specifically the word > > "separate" which to me implies separate from the licence that xforms is > > distributed under. Maybe somthing like "(You already have permission to > > distribute the binary form of xforms from the xforms licence)". But I > > think I'd prefer the line be removed entirely. > > Perhaps. I'd rather someone else than me post a response, > perhaps even the person who suggested the added line. You might > also want to look up the thread below in the debian-legal mailing > list archive. > > Peter > > -- > To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: 6 GPL'ed Packages that depend on XForms. > From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 07 Jun 1999 20:18:30 +0200 [ snip ] > Also I think it would be a good thing (even if not strictly > required by law) to spell out explicitly that you are not > purporting to relicense XForms itself. Okay, I get it now. I'd suggest something like "(the XForms licence still applies to the xforms portions of the binary)". Just as long as it doesn't imply that you need to get some permission from the xforms people that the xforms licence hasn't already granted you. - Tom
Re: XForms GPL exception...
On Fri, Jun 18, 1999 at 01:35:29PM -0700, Tom Lear wrote: > > Also I think it would be a good thing (even if not strictly > > required by law) to spell out explicitly that you are not > > purporting to relicense XForms itself. > > Okay, I get it now. I'd suggest something like "(the XForms licence still > applies to the xforms portions of the binary)". Just as long as it > doesn't imply that you need to get some permission from the xforms people > that the xforms licence hasn't already granted you. Should indicate the XForms license may place additional restrictions on you and that you should read the XForms license. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - there is 150 meg in the /tmp dir! DEAR LORD pgp0oKCAGVdas.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG And Trademarks
On Fri, Jun 18, 1999 at 09:02:47AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > I believe that several packages in main have a licence which forces > any modified version to use another name. (TeX is a typical example.) > This is not itself a violation of DFSG (it is even explicitely > authorized in article 4), IMHO. Is that why TeX for Debian is named "tetex"? > In practice, if you fork and start a new CUPS, with the same code > base, you will not want to use the same name, anyway. I'm not really wanting to fork, per se; I'm more concerned with bug fixes, adjustments for policy, security, etc. I would submit all my hacks to Easy Software for inclusion in their package and assign copyright, so there would be no question of their ability to use my code. The issue comes up if Easy Software considers some of our policy requirements to be silly, or if they lag in incorporating bug or security fixes. The question (which I'm hoping will be clarified soon) is how much patching they would consider "configuration" and how much would be considered a "derivative".
Re: DFSG And Trademarks
On Fri, Jun 18, 1999 at 02:35:02PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Change the name on your package just enough to avoid all of the trademarks, > because we _will_ have to fix bugs before they do, etc. Any recommendations on avoiding the trademark? Do I have to come up with a brand new name, or would something like "cups-debian" or "debcups" or "dcups" work OK?
Re: DFSG And Trademarks
On Jun 18, Jeff Licquia wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 1999 at 02:35:02PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Change the name on your package just enough to avoid all of the trademarks, > > because we _will_ have to fix bugs before they do, etc. > > Any recommendations on avoiding the trademark? Do I have to come up > with a brand new name, or would something like "cups-debian" or > "debcups" or "dcups" work OK? "dcups" is a double-entendre (at least in .us) and probably should be avoided... "cups-debian" might work; "common-unix-print-sys" might also be appropriate (and a bit more descriptive). And it gets around the trademark... (My understanding is that an acronym can't be trademarked under U.S. law, so the "CUPS" trademark may be invalid in any case.) Chris
