Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 09:50:59AM -0800, Joel Klecker wrote: > No it's not, it's because binaries made from modified source are not > distributable. > > >It might just be simpler for everybody to talk to UW about it. Life would > >be much easier if they just BSD'd it or put it under Artistic (yuk) or > >something.. > > If UW *wanted* a free license, they would have kept the license they *had* > years ago which was free. Instead they changed it to the evil non-free > license *and* legally threatened anyone who tried to fork from the last ^ > free pine. Does this sound like an organization that gives a damn about ^ > free software to you? What was its primary licence ? What kind of free licence make such situations possible ??? (for me it is not free even a little bit if author can change his mind and take away your freedom)
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What kind of free licence make such situations possible ??? > (for me it is not free even a little bit if author can change > his mind and take away your freedom) I'm told that under American law, a promise that is made without getting something tangible (a "consideration") in return cannot be legally binding. That would seem to allow any free software license to be revoked as soon as the author wants to. I might be wrong, though. Can one of the American law guys comment? -- Henning Makholm "Der er ingen der sigter på slottet. D'herrer konger agter at triumfere fra balkonen når de har slået hinanden ihjel."
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On Dec 13, Henning Makholm wrote: > Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > What kind of free licence make such situations possible ??? > > (for me it is not free even a little bit if author can change > > his mind and take away your freedom) > > I'm told that under American law, a promise that is made without > getting something tangible (a "consideration") in return cannot be > legally binding. That would seem to allow any free software license > to be revoked as soon as the author wants to. > > I might be wrong, though. Can one of the American law guys comment? This month's Linux Magazine has an article about this subject (and related concepts). It is possible that the right of future access to source code could be considered "consideration," since the software would not have been used in the absence of that right. IANAL, of course, and this has never been litigated. My gut feeling is that a court would never rule the GPL as invalid, though, if only because there are virtually no positive ramifications of such a ruling (because if the GPL is invalid, then NOBODY can use GPLed code... it wouldn't revert to the public domain, which is the only "benefit" that an overturned GPL might have to proprietary software companies!). Chris -- = |Chris Lawrence| Get Debian GNU/Linux CDROMs| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |http://www.lordsutch.com/cds/ | | || | Open Directory Editor| Visit the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5: | | http://dmoz.org/ | <*> http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/ <*> | =
Re: webmin license
> On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 04:37:16PM +0100, Gergely Madarasz wrote: > > > We have software which don't qualify into debian > > > main distribution because the licence is GPL but with a special clause: > > > can't be used on microsoft operating systems. > > > > point me to one of them > > i have to see it > > remind Indeed a) REMIND may not be used under Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95 or NT) or any future version of Windows. Such use constitutes a violation of copyright. b) REMIND may not be used by Cadabra Design Libraries Inc. or its directors, nor by any of Cadabra's subsidiaries or their directors. Such use constitutes a violation of copyright. c) Except for situations (a) and (b), REMIND may be used and distributed according to the terms of the GNU General Public License, Version 2, which follows: [...] However, I recall reading in a message last week that a copyright licence cannot restrict the use of the copyrighted material, only the circumstances under which it may be copied. Indeed, I would find it strange if somebody added a clause like "this software may only be used in the production of weapons if those weapons are to be targetted against ", and can hardly imagine that such a clause would be legally binding in any way. So isn't the remind copyright legally void? (So maybe the copyright might have restricted copying to machines running M$ software, which would then create interesting problems like: what about copying on a PC running GNU/Linux, but to a VFAT partition, then rebooting...) Marc van Leeuwen Universite de Poitiers http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Chris Lawrence wrote: > On Dec 13, Henning Makholm wrote: > > I'm told that under American law, a promise that is made without > > getting something tangible (a "consideration") in return cannot be > > legally binding. That would seem to allow any free software license > > to be revoked as soon as the author wants to. > > > > I might be wrong, though. Can one of the American law guys comment? > > This month's Linux Magazine has an article about this subject (and > related concepts). It is possible that the right of future access to > source code could be considered "consideration," since the software > would not have been used in the absence of that right. > Certainly people who were contributing modifications to an existing GPL'ed code base would be getting a tangible consideration for doing so. I'm not sure how this would apply to original authors who don't accept external patches - mostly because of the "tangibility" requirement. On the other hand, you might be able to quantify in monetary terms the time spent by others in bug-finding and reporting even without patches. > of such a ruling (because if the GPL is invalid, then NOBODY can use > GPLed code... it wouldn't revert to the public domain, which is the > only "benefit" that an overturned GPL might have to proprietary > software companies!). except the original authors, if they haven't accepted any patches significant enough to qualify for copyright protection. Lynn
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
Henning Makholm wrote: > Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > What kind of free licence make such situations possible ??? > > (for me it is not free even a little bit if author can change > > his mind and take away your freedom) I'd be surprised if this were enforcable, and it would be fun for the FSF to find the last `free' version and fork it. > I'm told that under American law, a promise that is made without > getting something tangible (a "consideration") in return cannot be > legally binding. That would seem to allow any free software license > to be revoked as soon as the author wants to. > > I might be wrong, though. Can one of the American law guys comment? I'm sure the FSF's lawyers don't think so. Peter
New draft of jcode.pl licence
Hi, I talked with the author of jcode.pl again, and the following is the new draft we worked out: ;# Use and redistribution for ANY PURPOSE are granted as long as all ;# copyright notices are retained. Redistribution with modification is ;# allowed provided that you make your modified version distinguishable ;# from the original one. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ;# ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES ARE DISCLAIMED. How about this? Any comments? -- Masayuki Hatta The University of Tokyo [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New draft of jcode.pl licence
> ;# Use and redistribution for ANY PURPOSE are granted as long as all > ;# copyright notices are retained. Redistribution with modification is > ;# allowed provided that you make your modified version distinguishable > ;# from the original one. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR > ;# ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES ARE DISCLAIMED. > > How about this? Any comments? A modified version differs from the original one (otherwise it is not modified, right?) and it will therefore be distinguishable using for instance "diff". I think one should be clearer about the means needed to make the distinction (file names, --version flag, ...). Marc van Leeuwen
Re: New draft of jcode.pl licence
On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 03:51:09PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: > > ;# Use and redistribution for ANY PURPOSE are granted as long as all > > ;# copyright notices are retained. Redistribution with modification is > > ;# allowed provided that you make your modified version distinguishable > > ;# from the original one. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR > > ;# ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES ARE DISCLAIMED. > > > > How about this? Any comments? > > A modified version differs from the original one (otherwise it is not > modified, right?) and it will therefore be distinguishable using for instance > "diff". I think one should be clearer about the means needed to make the > distinction (file names, --version flag, ...). Why not use the text of the GPL (Clause 2 a) after the "provided that": You [must] cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Cheers, Mark
Re: webmin license
Marc van Leeuwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > However, I recall reading in a message last week that a copyright licence > cannot restrict the use of the copyrighted material, There is not universal agreement about that. Some people argue that running a program involves creating a copy of it in the computer's RAM thus is subject to copyright. Those people are mostly lawyers from the software industry, but that by itself does not invalidate their arguments. There is a section in the Danish copyright law which reads, "one who has permission to use a computer program may make such copies as are necessary to use it". It is contested whether that means that it is enough to be in possession of a legally made copy or that it implies that there is such a thing as a "permission to use a computer program" -- which, supposedly, you have to get from the author. I think the section is based on a EU directive, so similar wording may be in effect in France. > So isn't the remind copyright legally void? I don't think so. (Never mind that the *copyright* cannot be void unless the author has been misidentified or it expires; the thing that might be invalidated is the *license* or parts of it). -- Henning Makholm "Panic. Alarm. Incredulity. *Thing* has not enough legs. Topple walk. Fall over not. Why why why? What *is* it?"
Re: webmin license
On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 02:37:00PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: > Indeed > >a) REMIND may not be used under Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, 95 > or NT) or any future version of Windows. Such use constitutes > a violation of copyright. > >b) REMIND may not be used by Cadabra Design Libraries Inc. or its > directors, nor by any of Cadabra's subsidiaries or their directors. > Such use constitutes a violation of copyright. > >c) Except for situations (a) and (b), REMIND may be used and > distributed according to the terms of the GNU General Public > License, Version 2, which follows: [...] > > However, I recall reading in a message last week that a copyright licence ^ > cannot restrict the use of the copyrighted material, only the circumstances ^^^ > under which it may be copied. Indeed, I would find it strange if somebody > added a clause like "this software may only be used in the production of > weapons if those weapons are to be targetted against ", > and can hardly imagine that such a clause would be legally binding in any way. > So isn't the remind copyright legally void? > > (So maybe the copyright might have restricted copying to machines running M$ > software, which would then create interesting problems like: what about > copying on a PC running GNU/Linux, but to a VFAT partition, then rebooting...) What about non-commercial usage only ? Are such licences valid ?
Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 09:27:05AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > What kind of free licence make such situations possible ??? > > > (for me it is not free even a little bit if author can change > > > his mind and take away your freedom) > > I'd be surprised if this were enforcable, and it would be fun for > the FSF to find the last `free' version and fork it. Point me to last free pine You know what Im going to do !!!
Re: webmin license
On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 07:12:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > There is a section in the Danish copyright law which reads, "one who > has permission to use a computer program may make such copies as are > necessary to use it". For comparison, the Finnish law says, "Joka on laillisesti hankkinut tietokoneohjelman, saa valmistaa ohjelmasta sellaiset kappaleet ja tehdä ohjelmaan sellaisia muutoksia, jotka ovat tarpeen ohjelman käyttämiseksi aiottuun tarkoitukseen. Tämä koskee myös virheiden korjaamista." (Tekijänoikeuslaki § 25j 1 mom, 446/1995) unofficially translated by me as: "He or she who has legally obtained a computer program may make those copies of or changes to the program that are necessary for using the program for the intended purpose. This includes the right to fix defects in it." (Apparently this right can be revoked by a contract.) -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% "" (John Cage)
