Re: From Corel on the EULA

[Jeremy Blosser]

Erich Forler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In order to be effective, however, the contract must be binding upon the
> persons who enter into it. In some jurisdictions, contracts entered into
> by minors are deemed by law to be not binding upon them or to be
> voidable at the option of the minor.  As a result, if a licensor of
> software attempts to enter into a contract with a minor regarding the
> use of software it runs the risk that the terms of the end user license
> agreement may not be enforceable.
> 
> The purpose of the “minor” clause, therefore, is to ensure that the
> license agreement that is entered into between the licensors of the
> software (ie. the many contributors of code) and the users of the
> software is a valid and binding one.

Explain, then, how this same logic applies to accepting code that was
written by minors (the contributors of the code) and ensuring that the
license agreement entered into between those minors and Corel (who is
redistributing the code per the license they are accepting from those
minors) is a valid and binding one.

-- 
Jeremy Blosser   |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   |   http://jblosser.firinn.org/


pgpIkC6KbYzqH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[William T Wilson]

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:

> Depends on how that's accomplished.  If it's a license for the entire
> distribution as a whole, it should be possible.  That's what I was
> assuming: a EULA for the distribution.

In short, you can't do that.  You can't circumvent the provisions of the
GPL just by saying that your license applies to the distribution as a
whole, rather than any specific part.  Section 6 of the GPL overrides
that, by specifying that "you may not impose any further restrictions on
the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."  Preventing them
from using or distributing the GPL software for any purpose, including
that which you deem morally bankrupt, is against the rules.

Section 6 also specifies that the recipient of a GPL program receives
their license for that program from the original licensor.  Unless that
entity is willing to go along with your desire to restrict the use of the
software, your restrictions would (again) be void.

You can call your restrictions simply restrictions on the distribution as
a whole, but the fact remains that they are also restrictions on the
further redistribution of the GPL-covered software, which is expressly
forbidden.  The only thing you could do would be to restrict the use of
the distribution as you have laid it out - for example the installer, by
making it non-GPL.  But the components that make up the system are
untouchable.

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[Seth David Schoen]

Peter S Galbraith writes:

> I wrote:
> 
> > > If you don't own the code that is GPLed, you can't relicense it
> > > under a different license.  How could you then use `a license
> > > that prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort
> > > of nonsense they've been pulling' if the GPL allows it?
> 
> Seth David Schoen wrote:
> 
> > Depends on how that's accomplished.  If it's a license for the entire
> > distribution as a whole, it should be possible.  That's what I was
> > assuming: a EULA for the distribution.
> > 
> > If it's a matter of relicensing GPLed code to forbid the use of EULAs,
> > at all, then no, it's presumably not allowed. :-)
> 
> You misunderstand what I meant.  Even if your `EULA for the
> distribution' said corporations weren't allowed to download it,
> nothing could prevent a company from obtaining the GPL components
> of the distribution from a third party and then `pulling the sort of
> nonsense they've been pulling'

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding; that's absolutely correct.  I was
thinking that you were talking about a different issue.

> (I'm not saying that slapping an EULA on top of GPL software is
> legal;  I don't know that it is.  If it's called a `license', it's
> different that saying you can have this GPL code for $1)

Obviously _some_ EULAs on top of compilations containing GPLed software are
legal.  Presumably not all of them are.

-- 
Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp.  http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/  | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down:  http://www.loyalty.org/   (CAF)  | not have leisure.  -- Pirke Avot 2:5

Re: From Corel on the EULA

[Erich Forler]

> Why are you using a fake email address in your headers?

At Corel, the mailing lists get filtered into a newsgroups which makes them
easier to manage and to track topic threads. The headers are put on by the
system which does the translation from newsgroup back to the mailing list. I
respond to a newsgroup but the message is sent to the mailing list.

Erich

-- 
The address in the headers is not the poster's real email address.  Do not send
private mail to the poster using your mailer's "reply" feature.  CC's of mail 
to mailing lists are OK.  Problem reports to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".  
The poster's email address is "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".

Re: From Corel on the EULA

[Ben Pfaff]

Erich Forler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Is the =93Minor=94 clause a violation of the GPL?
> 
> Some commentators have suggested that by requiring persons to certify
> that they are not a minor, or to have a parent or legal guardian agree
> to the terms to the GPL on their behalf, Corel has changed the terms of
> the GPL.  This is not the case.
> 
> The GPL does not require distributors of GPL software to make copies of
> the software available to all persons. Rather, it requires that all
> persons to whom copies of GPL software are distributed be granted the
> right to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.  As a result, a
> distributor of GPL software can restrict the availability of its
> distribution to, among other things,  persons in a particular territory,
> persons who have paid a fee or persons who are above a certain age;
> provided that all persons to whom copies of the software are distributed
> are not restricted from making, distributing and/or modifying copies of
> the GPL software.

Then I suggest that Corel makes the above clear by stating on the
web site that the ``EULA'' is a license agreement for the use of
Corel's ftp and/or web services, not for the software.  I
personally have no problem with Corel restricting the choice of
to whom they distribute their software, and I agree that it is
not a violation of the GPL.

> --=20
> The address in the headers is not the poster's real email address.  Do no=
> t send
> private mail to the poster using your mailer's "reply" feature.  CC's of =
> mail=20
> to mailing lists are OK.  Problem reports to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"=
> . =20
> The poster's email address is "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".

Why are you using a fake email address in your headers?
-- 
"Whoever you are -- SGI, SCO, HP, or even Microsoft -- most of the
 smart people on the planet work somewhere else."
--Eric S. Raymond

From Corel on the EULA

[Erich Forler]

The following is a note from our legal department on the discussion of
the "minor" clause in the Corel Linux EULA. I hope it clarifies why the
EULA is the way it is and why we believe it actually has positive value
for free software developers.

Erich Forler
Product Development Manager
Corel Linux


Dear Reader:

Last week a number of posting appeared on Slashdot.org and other message
boards questioning  the legality of a clause that appears in the end
user license agreement for Corel LINUX (“EULA”).  The clause in question
reads as follows:

“BY CLICKING “ACCEPT” BELOW:

1.  YOU CERTIFY THAT YOU ARE NOT A MINOR AND THAT YOU ACCEPT TO BE BOUND
BY ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE LICENSE BELOW.
DOWNLOADING AND/OR USING THE PRODUCT WILL BE AN IRREVOCABLE ACCEPTANCE
OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE LICENSE.”

The cause for the concern has been the phrase “YOU CERTIFY THAT YOU ARE
NOT A MINOR”.   Some commentators have argued that such a requirement is
in violation of the GNU General Public License (hereafter referred to as
“GPL”).   The following is an explanation of the clause and why it has
been included in the EULA.

What is the purpose of the “Minor” clause?

An end user license agreement is an agreement, or contract, between the
licensor and users of the software.  Typically this type of contract
will include a description of the licenses granted to the end user, any
obligations or restrictions that the licensor might wish to impose upon
the use of the software, and a disclaimer of  warranties regarding the
performance of the software.

In order to be effective, however, the contract must be binding upon the
persons who enter into it. In some jurisdictions, contracts entered into
by minors are deemed by law to be not binding upon them or to be
voidable at the option of the minor.  As a result, if a licensor of
software attempts to enter into a contract with a minor regarding the
use of software it runs the risk that the terms of the end user license
agreement may not be enforceable.

The purpose of the “minor” clause, therefore, is to ensure that the
license agreement that is entered into between the licensors of the
software (ie. the many contributors of code) and the users of the
software is a valid and binding one.  This is beneficial to all
contributors of open source code  in that it helps ensure that
provisions in the GPL which limit each contributors liability, as well
as the obligations placed on end users regarding the use and
distribution of the software, are effective.

Is the “Minor” clause a violation of the GPL?

Some commentators have suggested that by requiring persons to certify
that they are not a minor, or to have a parent or legal guardian agree
to the terms to the GPL on their behalf, Corel has changed the terms of
the GPL.  This is not the case.

The GPL does not require distributors of GPL software to make copies of
the software available to all persons. Rather, it requires that all
persons to whom copies of GPL software are distributed be granted the
right to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.  As a result, a
distributor of GPL software can restrict the availability of its
distribution to, among other things,  persons in a particular territory,
persons who have paid a fee or persons who are above a certain age;
provided that all persons to whom copies of the software are distributed
are not restricted from making, distributing and/or modifying copies of
the GPL software.

The Corel EULA expressly states that the use of GPL software included in
Corel LINUX  is governed by the terms of the GPL.  As a result, every
person to whom Corel distributes a copy of GPL software is entitled to
copy, distribute and/or modify such software in accordance with the
terms of the GPL.

Does Corel not want minors to use its software?

It is not Corel’s intention to prevent minors from using Corel LINUX.
Corel recognizes that some of the keenest users of Linux are individuals
who fall within this category and hopes that Corel LINUX is used by
persons of all age. Corel simply wants to ensure that if a minor wishes
to use the software, his or her parent or legal guardian accepts the
terms of use on his or her behalf.  As stated above, this is the best
way to ensure that the disclaimer of warranties made by contributors of
the GPL software is effective and to ensure that users of GPL software
continue to make their improvements to GPL software available for use by
others.

We trust that this explanation adequately addresses the concerns voiced
by many of you and thank those who have brought their concerns to our
attention.


-- 
The address in the headers is not the poster's real email address.  Do not send
private mail to the poster using your mailer's "reply" feature.  CC's of mail 
to mailing lists are OK.  Problem reports to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".  
The poster's email address is "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Erich Forler]

> > And no doubt the risk of having their idle comments paraded about on
> > slashdot isn't exactly an incentive.

Yes, keeping tabs on slashdot flame wars isn't generally how I like to spend my
days.

> It seems to me, then, that we need a debian-legal-private list.  I
> dunno how we'd handle subscription, etc., since obviously not all
> developers are interested in -legal issues.

This would definitely make it easier to have open, constructive dialog, but such
private lists fly in the face of the openness of the community to some degree 
and
doesn't guarantee that the topics will stay out of the slashdot headlines.

Erich Forler
Product Development Manager
Corel Linux

-- 
The address in the headers is not the poster's real email address.  Do not send
private mail to the poster using your mailer's "reply" feature.  CC's of mail 
to mailing lists are OK.  Problem reports to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".  
The poster's email address is "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Erich Forler]

> I have to wonder, though, if it wouldn't be in everyone's best interest
> if we encouraged Corel and anyone else who plans on make a Debian derived
> distribution to subscribe one or two of their lawyers to -legal, and
> run things by us.

Given the slashdot effect and general flame wars which erupt, I'm not sure an 
open
forum is the appropriate place for such discussions. Of course exclusive closed
discussions are equally disliked so I don't have a solution to propose.

Erich Forler
Product Development Manager
Corel Linux

-- 
The address in the headers is not the poster's real email address.  Do not send
private mail to the poster using your mailer's "reply" feature.  CC's of mail 
to mailing lists are OK.  Problem reports to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".  
The poster's email address is "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[Erich Forler]

While we clearly won't agree on philosophical grounds, perhaps we're not as far
apart as you might think. Your philosophical concerns are well stated here and 
I'd
like to respond to some of your concerns as they pertain to Corel.

> Everyone's interested in filling their own pockets.

As a publicly traded corporation and not a charity, we of course have to be
profitable, but that doesn't mean we can't support the ideals of free software.
These ideas don't have to be mutually exclusive.

> In most cases, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that those who "buy" modern
> commercial GNU/Linux dists (which are often laced with tons of non-free
> code, usually-- as in the case of Red Hat-- completely unsegregated from
> free code, and often part of the base system) assume that (just as with
> the Microsoft OSes they were "buying" a year ago) they have no freedom to
> alter or redistribute any parts of their OS, so they don't even try. Right
> now, the end-users have significant freedoms with regard to the software
> they are running-- the various commercial GNU/Linux dists-- and I doubt
> that even more than 5% of them can even identify those freedoms.
> Furthermore, I doubt that these freedoms will last. So few people know or
> care about them that what is free today probably won't be free in a few
> years.

Or in the case of Corel Linux, the download version includes one application 
which
is non-free: Netscape. If Mozilla was up to speed in functionality and 
stability,
which it will be hopefully soon, then this last piece could be removed. We
specifically addressed this issue in our retail versions of Corel Linux. In the
retail product, we include several discs. The first disc includes a mix of free 
and
non-free applications like many other commercial distros. Since we're based on
Debian, the non-free components are appropriately segregated. A second disc
includes the same image as the download, is labeled "Open Circulation", and a 
card
in the box identifies what you can do with that disc. We did this so users had a
disc that could be easily installed on multiple machines.

> As time goes on, they are replacing bits and pieces of it
> with non-free code, (i.e. fdisk and FIPS with Partition Magic in
> Caldera's case) and/or supplementing the free stuff with non-free stuff
> (i.e. the addition of non-free word processors and Web browsers, and
> the inclusion of such programs in the base/default installation, without
> even clearly marking them as non-free.)

I think you're actually combining two issues here. Replacing free code with non
free is one issue and adding in non-free applications is another. Replacing free
code with non-free code is not something Corel has any interest in doing unless 
the
free code somehow prohibited us from moving a technology forward. So far this 
has
not happened and I don't expect it to. Adding non-free applications is a place
where we'll clearly disagree. Applications like Netscape or WP get included 
because
there are no comparable equivalents available in the free realm. Told you we
wouldn't agree. ;->

> By the time anyone outside the ivory tower of computer geekdom realizes
> what's going on, I'd wager that these companies will have replaced
> numerous core elements of their OSes with non-free code.

I can't speak for other distros but Corel has no interest in recreating
functionality if it is already perfectly effective. If you look at the 
enhancements
we've made, they are generally all focussed primarily on the user interface 
level
and supporting that level. We aren't spending time re-building sections of low
level code that already work well. This is one of the greatest synergistic 
effects
of free software development.

> At this rate, I'm
> fully expecting a vast network of licensing agreements to spring up. Some
> commercial entity will come out with a nice GCC replacement that's
> completely non-free, then every commercial Linux dist will license it...

Unless the replacement is better, there is no reason for distros to do this. 
Every
piece that is licensed into the box costs us money. If GCC continues to be the
technology leader it should face no threat from proprietary technology. One of 
the
most basic beliefs is that the free software development produces better 
products.

> Or, put more simply still-- the GPL acted as a deterrant only until the
> commercial world finally was pressured to enter the GNU world. Now that
> they have done so, they're finding ever more clever ways to create less-
> and less-free distributions from mostly GPLd code.

>From my earlier comments in this post and an explanation I'll be posting later
about the "minor" agreement, I don't believe Corel Linux to be less free. 
Replace
Navigator with Mozilla and it's all free.

> The GPL is no longer
> serving as a convenient deterrent to keep money-loving hoarders out of the
> community formerly occupied chiefly by computer-loving hackers and free
> software coders.

My understanding of the GP

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[Erich Forler]

> It'd be nice if they'd send their lawyers to this list so that they can
> explain wtf is going on, and give us some helpful comments without having
> to add `IANAL' or `I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice' like the
> rest of us do.

I'll be posting a note from our legal department here in a little while.

> But all this talk of how much Corel sucks and how they're conspiring
> amongst themselves to destroy us is just getting a bit ridiculous.

It would hardly be in our best interest to destroy Debian and if we were
anti-Open Source, we wouldn't have released all our distro additions as LGPL,
GPL, and CPL.

Erich Forler
Product Development Manager
Corel Linux

-- 
The address in the headers is not the poster's real email address.  Do not send
private mail to the poster using your mailer's "reply" feature.  CC's of mail 
to mailing lists are OK.  Problem reports to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".  
The poster's email address is "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[Caspian]

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Don Marti wrote:

> But if you must have a category for "free software to create a GIF",
> neither non-us nor non-free seems to apply.

What of the sort of thing that was used in the older (pre-PNG) releases of
GD? I.e. code that generates GIF files that an ordinary GIF viewer can
read, without using the LZW algorithm itself?

> 
> -- 
> Don Marti   |  Free the web. Burn all GIFs. 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |  You can't spell "software patent reform"
> http://zgp.org/~dmarti  |  without "U". 
> whois DM683 |  http://burnallgifs.org/ 
> 


-- 
 = Jon "Caspian" Blank,  right-brained computer programmer at large =
..
|  Freelance coder and Unix geek / Founder, The Web Union (twu.net)  |
|  Information wants to be free! Visit www.gnu.org.  |
| WANTED: Writers who share the GNU philosophy. www.forsmarties.net. |
| -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  - - |
| E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Web: http://caspian.twu.net |
| Send a short message to my cell phone: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
`'

Re: Bruce Perens's Slashdot debacle

[Joop Stakenborg]

On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 04:13:11AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> 
>

[ lots of good words] 

How about putting a kind of disclaimer at the end of every message which
is sent through some of our lists? We could adopt the following 
unsubscribe message:

> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Joop
-- 

 Joop Stakenborg PA4TU, ex-PA3ABA 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Linux Amateur Radio Software Database
http://radio.linux.org.au

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[Don Marti]

On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:24:52PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:

> You are entirely right that programs prohibited by patents
> in some countries should not be treated like programs
> restricted by their authors.
> 
> gimp-nonfree should be renamed and reclassified as a free non-us
> package.

LZW is patented in countries other than the US -- "United States Patent
No. 4,558,302, Japanese Patent Numbers 2,123,602 and 2,610,084, and
patents in Canada, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom."
according to http://corp2.unisys.com/LeadStory/lzwfaq.html

The Debian policy -- http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch2.html
-- says that non-us is for cryptography that can't legally be exported
from the US.  But there are countries from which you can export crypto 
in which the LZW patent is enforced.

As a practical matter, I discourage anyone from distributing any GIF
files or software to create them. I want GIF to join Betamax, DIVX, and
SDMI on the junk pile of formats whose "owners" killed them by trying to
keep them proprietary. It will help to make an argument for openness and
interoperability that even the most clueless of managers can understand.

But if you must have a category for "free software to create a GIF",
neither non-us nor non-free seems to apply.

-- 
Don Marti   |  Free the web. Burn all GIFs. 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  |  You can't spell "software patent reform"
http://zgp.org/~dmarti  |  without "U". 
whois DM683 |  http://burnallgifs.org/ 

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[Chris Lawrence]

On Dec 02, Caspian wrote:
> Something-- SOMETHING-- must be done, or in five to ten years the Linux
> (and I do say "Linux" here, since it will no longer be "GNU/Linux")

The "GNU/Linux" term has relatively little currency outside Debian.
It never has been "GNU/Linux" to more than a few people.  I doubt you
see it much except self-consciously or in the phrase "Debian
GNU/Linux" (which gets butchered as "Debian/GNU Linux" half the time
anyway...)

In any event, my personal opinion is that Corel has the right to
decide who to sell or give their software to, and who not to.  They
may have phrased it badly, but that's what their intent is.  In any
event, that decision disproves your assertion that all Corel cares
about is money, since obviously they'd make more money if they were
selling to minors.  Under the GPL, they are only obligated not to make
the "you can't sell to minors" restriction viral.

It also seems we're venturing into debian-project territory here


Chris
-- 
=
|Chris Lawrence |Get Debian GNU/Linux CDROMs|
|   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>|   http://www.lordsutch.com/cds/   |
|   |   |
|   Debian Developer|Join the party that opposed the CDA|
|http://www.debian.org/ | http://www.lp.org/|
=

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[Caspian]

I'm afraid this isn't about advertisement, or about the DFSG, or even
about the GPL. This is about the general trend of companies walking all
over the spirit of free software. No one is interested in "freedom talk",
as RMS puts it. Everyone's interested in filling their own pockets.

Crap like Corel's "adults-only" clause is only the tip of the iceberg.
Scratch a little deeper and you will discover a whole world of people who
have bought Red Hat, Caldera OpenLinux, etc. in the stores and either 
don't realize that most of it is redistributable, or  use a Red Hat
variant (either made by RHAT or by someone else) that's so deeply mixed
with non-free software that they'd be unable to determine what they can
and cannot touch, even if they -wanted- to.

In most cases, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that those who "buy" modern
commercial GNU/Linux dists (which are often laced with tons of non-free
code, usually-- as in the case of Red Hat-- completely unsegregated from
free code, and often part of the base system) assume that (just as with
the Microsoft OSes they were "buying" a year ago) they have no freedom to
alter or redistribute any parts of their OS, so they don't even try. Right
now, the end-users have significant freedoms with regard to the software
they are running-- the various commercial GNU/Linux dists-- and I doubt
that even more than 5% of them can even identify those freedoms.
Furthermore, I doubt that these freedoms will last. So few people know or
care about them that what is free today probably won't be free in a few
years.

In short, this is what I see happening. Companies who care about money a
lot, and about freedom not at all, are taking free software and making
OSes out of it. As time goes on, they are replacing bits and pieces of it
with non-free code, (i.e. fdisk and FIPS with Partition Magic in
Caldera's case) and/or supplementing the free stuff with non-free stuff
(i.e. the addition of non-free word processors and Web browsers, and
the inclusion of such programs in the base/default installation, without
even clearly marking them as non-free.) The crowd that these people are
selling to are completely unaware of what "free software" is-- so they
don't give their friends copies, and I'd wager that the majorty, when
asked for a copy of their GNU/Linux dist, would say "Well, if you want
a copy, you have to go to CompUSA and pay $59.95 for it like everyone
else, you "pirate.""

These effects are certainly not made any smaller by the proliferation of
the term "open source", rather than "free software". I can't tell you how
many times I've had to explain to people that NO, I am NOT an "open
source" advocate.

By the time anyone outside the ivory tower of computer geekdom realizes
what's going on, I'd wager that these companies will have replaced
numerous core elements of their OSes with non-free code. At this rate, I'm
fully expecting a vast network of licensing agreements to spring up. Some
commercial entity will come out with a nice GCC replacement that's
completely non-free, then every commercial Linux dist will license it...
and this process will repeat for other pieces of the GNU/Linux system
until virtually every major component of the canonical GNU/Linux dist is
no longer GNU at all.

Or, put another way, I don't trust the commercial software world. I fear
that either they're going to contaminate the freedom of free software
packages, or they're going to replace them wholesale, but either way, the
way in which companies have been handling their move to Linux has
demonstrated that they're in the "free software" world only because they
feel that it might make them money. Their true preference is for
software to be non-free, their sole interest is money, and antics like
Corel's make both of these facts abundantly clear.

Or, put more simply still-- the GPL acted as a deterrant only until the
commercial world finally was pressured to enter the GNU world. Now that
they have done so, they're finding ever more clever ways to create less-
and less-free distributions from mostly GPLd code. The GPL is no longer
serving as a convenient deterrent to keep money-loving hoarders out of the
community formerly occupied chiefly by computer-loving hackers and free
software coders. Now, they're invading our turf. The GPL is no longer
stopping them. They're ignoring it in some cases and avoiding it in
others, but in any case significant inroads have been made to eradicate
the free software world, and those creating those inroads have come from
two sides-- namely, from the ESR-esque "Open Source" people, who are
willing to sell out on one, many or all of the principles behind free
software in the interest of money (ESR even -admits- on opensource.org
that what the "Open Source Initiative" is is a marketing campaign for free
software. He literally admits this! It's not a philosophical movement at
all, but a marketing campaign.), on one side, and from the traditional
post-PDP-era, pre-GNU/Linux-era proprietary so

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]

On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 07:28:06AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> Maybe at this point, what's really needed is something -stricter- than the
> GPL. Companies are already starting to walk all over the spirit-- if not
> the letter-- of the GPL...just one idea, eh?

The strictiest still-DFSG-compatible licence I can invent is :

0:
you can use, modify, sell and redistribute both code and binary in
both modified and original form
you can not sublicense, mix with non-free code neither by libs nor corba
you have to preserve this note on all copies of package
you have to include the note `This distro is partially made of free software'
in all ads of distros mixed from either free and non-free code
7:

line 3   : closes corba hole
line 5-6 : old-BSD is DFSG-ok so it is either

Do you like it ?
( I dont )

counterproposal :

--- policy.sgml.old Fri Nov  5 00:46:28 1999
+++ policy.sgml Thu Dec  2 15:22:47 1999
@@ -228,6 +228,16 @@
other fee for such sale.
  

+   Free Advertising
+   
+   
+ 
+   The license of a Debian component may restrict some
+   kind of advertisement ( references to author )
+   but can not force inclusion of any text nor any
+   other element in it's advertisement.
+ 
+   
Source Code

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[Peter S Galbraith]

In reference to:

> > > > > I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is
> > > > > interested in making a completely, utterly free
> > > > > software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that prohibits
> > > > > putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of
> > > > > nonsense they've been pulling,

I wrote:

> > If you don't own the code that is GPLed, you can't relicense it
> > under a different license.  How could you then use `a license
> > that prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort
> > of nonsense they've been pulling' if the GPL allows it?

Seth David Schoen wrote:

> Depends on how that's accomplished.  If it's a license for the entire
> distribution as a whole, it should be possible.  That's what I was
> assuming: a EULA for the distribution.
> 
> If it's a matter of relicensing GPLed code to forbid the use of EULAs,
> at all, then no, it's presumably not allowed. :-)

You misunderstand what I meant.  Even if your `EULA for the
distribution' said corporations weren't allowed to download it,
nothing could prevent a company from obtaining the GPL components
of the distribution from a third party and then `pulling the sort of
nonsense they've been pulling'

(I'm not saying that slapping an EULA on top of GPL software is
legal;  I don't know that it is.  If it's called a `license', it's
different that saying you can have this GPL code for $1)

Peter
 

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[Caspian]

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:

> > From: Caspian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making a
> > completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that
> > prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of nonsense
> > they've been pulling, (i.e. a license even stricter than Debian's) I'd
> > love to help out.
> 
> OBLIGATORY THIS IS NOT FOR SLASHDOT NOTICE.

Hee!

> 
> Mr. Caspian,
> 
> I have an even better idea. Let's do a commercial Debian distribution the
> right way. We can show them by example.
> 
>   Bruce
> 

As much as anything with "commercial" in the name makes me feel saddened
just to talk about it, something like this clearly needs to be done. Yes.
This is definitely a good idea. Much as I sometimes wish to lash out at
the proprietary world by making a license even stricter than the GPL, I
know that I'd have to go such a route alone. Besides that, it might be
overreacting...

Perhaps efforts could be made to provide free alternates for all (or at
least MOST) non-free packages... i.e. Mozilla for Netscape, my proposed
PiClone/PINE-Clone for pico/PINE, yatadayatadayatada... and of course if
it had a EULA, it wouldn't restrict the OS to "adults" only, nor would it
make misleading statements about what copyrights "protect" about the
dist... :)

-- 
 = Jon "Caspian" Blank,  right-brained computer programmer at large =
..
|  Freelance coder and Unix geek / Founder, The Web Union (twu.net)  |
|  Information wants to be free! Visit www.gnu.org.  |
| WANTED: Writers who share the GNU philosophy. www.forsmarties.net. |
| -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  - - |
| E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Web: http://caspian.twu.net |
| Send a short message to my cell phone: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
`'

Is Qt1.4 compatible with (L)GPL?

[Piotr Roszatycki]

I didn't traced this mailing list, yet.

Where can I find informations about QT/KDE license incompatibility?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] more /usr/doc/libqt1g/copyright
[...]
  You accept this license.
  Your software does not require modifications to Qt Free Edition.
  You satisfy ONE of the following three requirements
  EITHER
Users of your software can freely obtain source code for the
software, freely modify the source code (possibly with
restrictions on copyright notices, attributions and legal
responsibility), and freely redistribute original or modified
versions of the software.
  OR
Your software is distributed under the GNU GENERAL
PUBLIC LICENSE, version 2 or later, as defined by the
Free Software Foundation.
  OR
Your software is distributed under the GNU LIBRARY
GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, version 2 or later, as
defined by the Free Software Foundation.
[...]

What doesn't mean? Is it possible to release QT-based application
on GPL license or not?

-- 
Piotr "Dexter" Roszatycki   GCM d- s-:- a-- C++ UL$ P+++ L+++>$ E W-
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   N++ o? K? w-- O-- M- V- PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP++ t-- 5--
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]X+ R tv-(--) b+ DI-- D++ G e h! r-- !y+

Re: Bruce Perens's Slashdot debacle

[Nils Lohner]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John 
Gal
t writes:
>
>I'm sure everybody has seen what happened when a mailinglist post by Bruce
>Perens got "leaked" to Slashdot.  I see part of the problem that the
>"news" people are seeing a dearth of news from the Debian Project, so are
>skimming the mailinglists as a substitute for timely information from the
>Debian Project. 
...
  My suggestion is that the Debian Project
>nominates/elects (an) Official Spokesperson(s) to Slashdot, LWN, and all
>the "geek news" outlets, said spokesperson to maintain membership in all
>Debian mailinglists, and to provide timely, edited information about all
>topics that may interest the relevant communities
...

this is supposed to be in two places: one is Joey Hess' DWN post, and the 
other should be [EMAIL PROTECTED]  The problem with [EMAIL PROTECTED] is that 
we can 
not monitor everythign that is going on in debian in a sufficient amount of 
detail to be able to know when and when not to make information releases to 
our press distribution lists.  This information needs to come from the 
people who know what's going on with a particular subject.

  Hence: if someone has someone that they think is worth releasing, drop a 
mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with _all_ relevant details so we can put together an 
announcement (or writ ethe announcement, we'll jsut put it into a standard 
format in that case) and it gets taken care of.  The problem to date has 
been that we don't receive this information, so we can't release anything.

We have the debian-announce, debian-news, and debian-commercial lists, and 
they're far underused at the moment.

Regards, Nils.

-- 
Nils Lohner E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian Press Team   Press:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bruce Perens's Slashdot debacle

[John Galt]

I'm sure everybody has seen what happened when a mailinglist post by Bruce
Perens got "leaked" to Slashdot.  I see part of the problem that the
"news" people are seeing a dearth of news from the Debian Project, so are
skimming the mailinglists as a substitute for timely information from the
Debian Project.  For example, both Potato's attempted freeze and its
subsequent delay should've been released to various outlets while it was
still possible to "spin" the story, for want of a better term.  Instead,
in both cases, the news got leaked out via the mailinglist posts, which
were written in technicalese and in an informal style that is fine for
mailinglists, but lousy for press releases.  The next instance of the
dearth of information from the Debian Project causing damage actually
DID cause Bruce Perens possible legal damage and entirely too real damage
to his Good Name.  My suggestion is that the Debian Project
nominates/elects (an) Official Spokesperson(s) to Slashdot, LWN, and all
the "geek news" outlets, said spokesperson to maintain membership in all
Debian mailinglists, and to provide timely, edited information about all
topics that may interest the relevant communities (the Linux community
most obviously, but the BSD community is saying many things about the
Debian/FreeBSD project based again on the information from mailinglists as
well, among others), and also tell the mailinglists affected what's going 
out under their AEgis. Another idea that may have merit is to subdivide
the task either by interest group or list--a slashdot commentator, a LWN
commentator, etc.  The outlets are already looking at the mailinglists,
the only thing we can do about it now is to provide a better alternative
than publicly airing what were supposed to be semi-private messages.

mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Who is John Galt?

Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
-- Ferenc Mantfeld

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Chris Lawrence]

On Dec 02, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > They seem to be put off by liability issues, etc.
> 
> And no doubt the risk of having their idle comments paraded about on
> slashdot isn't exactly an incentive.

It seems to me, then, that we need a debian-legal-private list.  I
dunno how we'd handle subscription, etc., since obviously not all
developers are interested in -legal issues.

Then we can invite selected people from VA (if you want to call their
disc with O'Reilly a separate distro), Corel, Stormix, whoever in to
discuss these things, without creating slashdot headlines.


Chris
-- 
=
|Chris Lawrence| The Linux/m68k FAQ |
|   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   |   http://www.linux-m68k.org/faq/faq.html   |
|  ||
|   Grad Student, Pol. Sci.| Are you tired of politics as usual?|
|  University of Mississippi   | http://www.lp.org/ |
=

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:20:34AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Anthony Towns 
> > In other words, what you said originally is probably wrong:
> I'm not communicating my point clearly.
> What I wanted to say was that they should be _consistent_ in their application
> of the legal-minor issue. If they want to restrict distribution to over-18,

Sure, I agree with this.

> IMO they don't need quite so much CYA language in their license and thus the
> legal minor issue is irrelevant. Many other companies their size or larger do
> without quite so much CYA, including Canadian companies that contribute to
> Debian.

Yeah.

> > I have to wonder, though, if it wouldn't be in everyone's best interest
> > if we encouraged Corel and anyone else who plans on make a Debian derived
> > distribution to subscribe one or two of their lawyers to -legal, and
> > run things by us.
> I think they are listening but they don't want to talk.

Which is pretty unfortunate, considering they've got lots of clues that
we're probably missing out on.

> They seem to be put off by liability issues, etc.

And no doubt the risk of having their idle comments paraded about on
slashdot isn't exactly an incentive.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds


pgpITE7Uh6pVs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Bruce Perens]

From: Anthony Towns 
> In other words, what you said originally is probably wrong:

I'm not communicating my point clearly.

What I wanted to say was that they should be _consistent_ in their application
of the legal-minor issue. If they want to restrict distribution to over-18,
they should not use software contributed by minors because that would be an
inconsistent application of the over-18 principle: ignoring the principle
when it's to their advantage, and restricting when it's neutral or not to
their advantage.

IMO they don't need quite so much CYA language in their license and thus the
legal minor issue is irrelevant. Many other companies their size or larger do
without quite so much CYA, including Canadian companies that contribute to
Debian.

> I have to wonder, though, if it wouldn't be in everyone's best interest
> if we encouraged Corel and anyone else who plans on make a Debian derived
> distribution to subscribe one or two of their lawyers to -legal, and
> run things by us.

I think they are listening but they don't want to talk.
I recently went to hire counsel for my company. I sent out a message on
license-discuss, asking if any real attorneys read the list and would consider
a relationship with me an important part of their business. I got an answer
from an attorney at a top-notch Palo Alto law firm, who admitted to reading
my posts for two years but had never posted _once_ in all of that time as a
lurker. They seem to be put off by liability issues, etc.

Thanks

Bruce

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:15:01PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Anthony Towns 
> > And nor does every other Canadian Debian distributor. And probably
> > anyone distributing a fair number of other free or semi-free software
> > collections, for Linux, *BSD, Mac, Windows or DOS. What's your point?
> You can't contract with a minor in the U.S. either. The point is that the
> software license is probably not a contract with the minor but with their
> parent or guardian.

In other words, what you said originally is probably wrong:

>>> So, have they broken that one once for every package built by a minor, and
>>> every package containing contributions from a minor? If so, they probably
>>> have no right to distribute a good deal of Debian software.

in that they haven't broken it at all, they've simply made contracts with
a bunch of parents and guardians, or similar.

Sure, that means their `over 18' thing is equally unnecessary, and that
whoever emailed you doesn't know what they're talking about, but that's
not a crime.

I have to wonder, though, if it wouldn't be in everyone's best interest
if we encouraged Corel and anyone else who plans on make a Debian derived
distribution to subscribe one or two of their lawyers to -legal, and
run things by us. Catching things like this, the beta license and the
apt/qt thing /before/ they happen would be good...

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds


pgpLPl3Wnt8Zt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Bruce Perens]

From: Anthony Towns 
> And nor does every other Canadian Debian distributor. And probably
> anyone distributing a fair number of other free or semi-free software
> collections, for Linux, *BSD, Mac, Windows or DOS. What's your point?

You can't contract with a minor in the U.S. either. The point is that the
software license is probably not a contract with the minor but with their
parent or guardian.

Bruce

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[Bruce Perens]

From: Anthony Towns 
> What sort of obligation?

To comply with the licenses of our software.

> It'd be nice if they'd get around to contributing all their enhancements
> back to Debian. That's a bit tricky since new-maintainers doesn't seem to
> have reopened yet, and it requires doing stuff that's not going to help
> their bottomline in any particularly obvious way.

Actually, I think all of their source code is on their FTP site. I don't
think it's necessary for them to become Debian maintainers, they only need
to make the code available.

> It'd be nice if they'd send their lawyers to this list so that they can
> explain wtf is going on

It's called "too much CYA". I discussed the CYA issue with attorneys
today at a licensing meeting. The problem is that there is no case law
concerning Open Source licensing, and everybody has their own concept of
CYA because they have no idea what _will_ happen.  But this one is going
over the top. If they want to restrict to over 18, they should remove
all of the code written by minors from Debian before they distribute it.

Bruce

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Julian Stoev]

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:

> FYI, I just got this (anonymous) reply from Corel.
> Peter
> 
> --- Forwarded Message
> 
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:45:55 -0500
> From: "Feedback Linux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Free Download End User License Agreement
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Sorry I was not able to get back to you earlier, but I got a little bit
> of email that day.
> 
> Corel is merely satisfying a Canadian law  (Corel is a Canadian company)
> that states that it is illegal for a company to enter into a contract
> with a minor.
> 
> Regards,
> Linux feedback
> Corel Corporation

In this case they should not use any software line produced by minors
under GPL. By using this kind of software they violate Canada law by
entering into contract with minor.

What if every package in Debian gets at least one line by a minor? I
assume they are going to fork and create debian-minor-free? ;-)

Also every person in Canada violates Canada law by using GPL software
made by minors.

--JS

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 10:37:02PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Corel is merely satisfying a Canadian law  (Corel is a Canadian company)
> > that states that it is illegal for a company to enter into a contract
> > with a minor.
> So, have they broken that one once for every package built by a minor, and
> every package containing contributions from a minor? If so, they probably
> have no right to distribute a good deal of Debian software.

And nor does every other Canadian Debian distributor. And probably
anyone distributing a fair number of other free or semi-free software
collections, for Linux, *BSD, Mac, Windows or DOS. What's your point?

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds


pgpliafeGYtgz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 10:33:16PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> AJ:
> > If you want to download something from their site, you have to do what
> > they tell you to. They're not adding restrictions on what you can do with
> Don't forget that they still have obligations to us, regarding our software
> licenses. It's still not clear to me that one isn't being broken here.

What sort of obligation?

It'd be nice if they distributed it to everyone, regardless of age, yes.
They're not required to, though, because that'd be a bit obnoxious on our
parts.

It'd be nice if they'd get around to contributing all their enhancements
back to Debian. That's a bit tricky since new-maintainers doesn't seem to
have reopened yet, and it requires doing stuff that's not going to help
their bottomline in any particularly obvious way.

It'd be nice if they'd send their lawyers to this list so that they can
explain wtf is going on, and give us some helpful comments without having
to add `IANAL' or `I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice' like the
rest of us do. It'd be nice if they'd read some of the posts to make sure
their in touch with what they're meant to be doing too, considering this
is probably just as new and weird from a legal perspective as from a
software engineering or economical perspective.

Which is to say that for sure, they could be more chummy with us. But
I for one can't see anything even remotely wrong with what they're
actually doing.

But all this talk of how much Corel sucks and how they're conspiring
amongst themselves to destroy us is just getting a bit ridiculous.

BTW, ``It's still not clear to me that one isn't being broken here.''
and the other similar sentiments elsewhere from this thread just smacks
of some weird `guilty until proven innocent' postulate for big companies.
Sure, I can't prove them innocent, because I'm not an IP law expert. But
that ain't my job, either.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds


pgp7Z7SLMPpQd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[Brian Ristuccia]

On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:24:52PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> infolved did bring up my original objection---that removing the suggests
> will make it harder for people to find things like "gimp-nonfree" (which
> is IMO badly named considering that the contents of the package are
> completely free--unless you live in the drain-bamaged US where LZW is
> patented and Unisys wants to make a fast buck off GIF files..)
> 
> You are entirely right that programs prohibited by patents
> in some countries should not be treated like programs
> restricted by their authors.
> 
> gimp-nonfree should be renamed and reclassified as a free non-us
> package.
> 

I think such a change in classification would require a change in Debian
policy. I, for one, endorse such a change. However, I can't speak for all of
Debian. 

-- 
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Free Download End User License Agreement

[Bruce Perens]

From: Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Corel is merely satisfying a Canadian law  (Corel is a Canadian company)
> that states that it is illegal for a company to enter into a contract
> with a minor.

So, have they broken that one once for every package built by a minor, and
every package containing contributions from a minor? If so, they probably
have no right to distribute a good deal of Debian software.

Bruce

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[Richard Stallman]

infolved did bring up my original objection---that removing the suggests
will make it harder for people to find things like "gimp-nonfree" (which
is IMO badly named considering that the contents of the package are
completely free--unless you live in the drain-bamaged US where LZW is
patented and Unisys wants to make a fast buck off GIF files..)

You are entirely right that programs prohibited by patents
in some countries should not be treated like programs
restricted by their authors.

gimp-nonfree should be renamed and reclassified as a free non-us
package.

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[Bruce Perens]

AJ:
> If you want to download something from their site, you have to do what
> they tell you to. They're not adding restrictions on what you can do with

Don't forget that they still have obligations to us, regarding our software
licenses. It's still not clear to me that one isn't being broken here.

Bruce

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[Bruce Perens]

> From: Caspian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making a
> completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that
> prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of nonsense
> they've been pulling, (i.e. a license even stricter than Debian's) I'd
> love to help out.

OBLIGATORY THIS IS NOT FOR SLASHDOT NOTICE.

Mr. Caspian,

I have an even better idea. Let's do a commercial Debian distribution the
right way. We can show them by example.

Bruce

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[William T Wilson]

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Caspian wrote:

> I'd just like to state that if anyone out there is interested in making a
> completely, utterly free software GNU/Linux dist, with a license that
> prohibits putzen like those at Corel from pulling the sort of nonsense
> they've been pulling, (i.e. a license even stricter than Debian's) I'd

You probably won't like to hear this, but what you're proposing would
violate the GPL. :}

Heh.

Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL

[William T Wilson]

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:

> I think imposing additional conditions on the use of software downloaded
> from Corel in fact contaminates EVERY license.  And while some of the

It does, but Corel isn't following the DFSG, so I don't think it matters.

> by Corel to their licenses, I am quite convinced that the GPL forbids
> additional restrictions placed on how GPL'd software may be used and by
> whom.

It does, but that isn't what Corel is doing.  The GPL forbids you from
preventing *others* from distributing the software.  It does not require
you to distribute the software to whoever wants it.  If I have GPL
software in my possession and I don't want to give it to you, fine.  The
reason doesn't matter - either you won't pay the fee, you're under 18, you
don't want the software bundled with it, you don't have a beard, whatever.  
That is what Corel is doing, and it's allowable under the GPL.  It's not
traditional behavior, but it's within the terms of the license.

Corel just can't tell their customers what they can do with the GPL
software once they have a copy.  And they haven't.  Whether they have an
ethical responsibility to tell their customers about this, and whether
they have fulfilled that, if applicable, is subject to debate.