Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?
James A. Treacy said: On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 09:09:39AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: James A. Treacy wrote: I don't care about this issue (got too many things going on at once). Come to a consensus about what to do and someone do it. Well I hope _someone_ gives a damn about little things like our social contract! People need to remember that the web content is the responsibility of everyone. Most of the people on this list (including you, Joey) have CVS access. If you see a small problem, fix it. If you see a bigger problem, discuss it on debian-www and then fix it. I apologize for being a bit rude, but I can't maintain the web pages by myself. OK, if it's all right by everyone I'll get something going so that the web pages are DFSG compliant. This doesn't mean I make the decision all by myself or do all the work, but I can act as a central point and make sure this does happen. I'll use the email list debian-www for discussion. We'll come up with something then I'll commit the changes to the CVS (After talking to Jay about the best time to do a total rebuild). If everyone is ok by this, don't bother Jay anymore about it, bother me. Of course he can contribute. I'll give it a day or so to allow for timezones and if noone screams then I'll assume it's a task for me. I guess the main questions are: 1) What should the license be? 2) Who needs to bless it? - Craig [EMAIL PROTECTED] spamreader :( -- Craig Small VK2XLZ, PGP: AD 8D D8 63 6E BF C3 C7 47 41 B1 A2 1F 46 EC 90 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIEEE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian developer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kde in debian
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 09:08:21PM +0100, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote: many people pointed out, that kde uses code (other than qt) from third sources. i thought so, too. at the time of kde beta 3 i read every single file of kde to ensure there are no problems, and there were very few programs with code from third party sources. so, you can look at my last kde package, i don´t think there very many new packages in the kde core with 3rd party sources. do you need me to look at every single file of kde to ensure there are no 3rd party sources in the kde core with potential for licence problems ? my guess is: they rewrote much code from the scratch, so there is far less 3rd party code in kde. if some app is open source, debian should allow it to go in. no matter whether it uses gtk or kde or qt. lgpl´ed code is no problem, gpl´ed code with the statement from all authors to allow linking with qt is also fine. (- corel use of dpkg/apt). how can i help ? Looking at http://kde.tdyc.com, I see Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] listed as the debian contact for kde packaging. Best thing to do is contact him. Biggest issue to be solved, to my knowledge, is fixing up /usr/doc/packagename/copyright files so that they're complete and accurate [or, where software doesn't meet DFSG: pull the program from the package]. -- Raul
Re: New OPL Draft
I don't object to options in licenses just as a matter of principle. But if some of the options make a license unacceptable, then I would not recommend that license at all--because recommending it could easily led people to see and use the bad options. Suppose one wanted to combine two related documents by piecing together subsections (and paragraphs) from each. If they were both under the same license (even though they used different options) it might be easier to proceed. It would not be any easier. Using two different sets of global options is really using two different licenses; it may not be apparent that that is so, but it is so. Another example would be where for one document, the option specifies that you can't modify it without permission of the author. Then this could be combined with a document that used another option provided the author agreed. You can do anything whatever with the work, if the author agrees. The license says what you can do *without* asking permission. Without asking permission, there's no advantage in this way of using options.
Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 05:49:10PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: And run-time is post-distribution while compile-time is pre-distribution, in the case of distribution of dynamically linked binaries. And no copyright-based licence has anything to say about what end users can do with the code they legally obtained (except redistribution). We're not talking about an isolated personal action here. We're talking about many thousands, if not millions of copies which are distributed by people who know what the end result is going to be. To see what that means, check out http://www.ladas.com/NII/CopyrightInfringement.html#con Yep, I checked it out. Here it is c. CONTRIBUTORY AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY Direct participation in infringing activity is not a prerequisite for infringement liability, as the Copyright Act grants to copyright owners not only the right to exercise the exclusive rights, but also the right to authorize the exercise of those rights. The inclusion of the right to authorize was intended to avoid any questions as to the liability of contributory infringers -- those who do not directly exercise the copyright owner's rights, but authorize others to do so. [...] exercise the copyright owner's rights means basically copying and distributing the copyrighted material. But my main point here is that dynamically loading into virtual memory an executable image from a legally obtained copy of a library object file and an application executable that was (by the distributor) dynamically linked against a copy that same library object file and thereafter legally distributed to the user, does not infringe the copyright owner's [of the library] rights. We're talking about libraries that can be publically distributed, or maybe about libraries that are not free but which the user has purchased. Really the act of loading is not in itself illegal. It would be if the end result would be distributed without permission from the author of the library, but that is not the case. And a million times no copyright infringement still makes no copyright infringement. I repeat my question: could Microsoft forbid our tax the distribution of binaries that are executable under MS Windows? To complete the quote: If someone has the right and ability to supervise the infringing action of another, and that right and ability coalesce with an obvious and direct financial interest in the exploitation of copyrighted materials -- even in the absence of actual knowledge that the infringement is taking place -- the supervisor may be held vicariously liable for the infringement. Vicarious liability is based on a connection to the direct infringer (not necessarily to the infringing activity). infringing action, infringement, infringer, infringing activity, its clear that without infringement there's no vicarious liability. The best known copyright cases involving vicarious liability are the dance hall cases, where vicarious liability was found when dance hall owners allowed the unauthorized public performance of musical works by the bands they hired, even when the owners had no knowledge of the infringements and had even expressly warned the bands not to perform copyrighted works without a license from the copyright owners. I maintain that unless the distribution of dynamically linked binaries itself is considered a copyright infringement, there's no vicarious liability either. And to come back to the static/dynamic distinction: an obvious and relevant difference with distribution of statically linked binaries is that the user can execute those without also having the library object file. Marc van Leeuwen Universite de Poitiers http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
Re: KDE not in Debian?
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 05:49:10PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: By the way, I assume that Microsoft does not forbid distribution of binaries for programs that run under MS Windows (that would certainly decrease the popularity of their platform). If they run without using Microsoft code (for example libraries), Microsoft has no say in it. However, no serious windows program does. Is this because they explicitly gave permission, or simply because their permission is not required? I honestly don't know, but I would bet it is the second possibilty. Does anybody have more definite information on such issues? Your question is answered by looking at the relevant licenses in MS development kits. For example the Visual Basic runtime library has a very restrictive license. You are allowed to distribute it with a VB program only. Of course, you must not reverse engineer etc. Thanks for the information (though I haven't any development kits to look at). Unfortunately it doesn't answer my question, or more exactly, shows that my question wasn't the one I was really after. If MS really is able (or think they are able) to bind people to a contract before they can even begin to make a Windows application, then they don't need to invoke copyright law, and so their position does not illuminate the possiblities of that law. I was thinking of a program that was freely developed and compiled to run under Windows (i.e., with the Windows API), but which does not require any other MS product (like the VB runtime library) to accompany it. Maybe such programs cannot legally exist, and the question becomes meaningless. Unless there is maybe some other proprietary platform, where users can actually get to own their copy of the software... Marc van Leeuwen
Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:03:35PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: Thanks for the information (though I haven't any development kits to look at). Unfortunately it doesn't answer my question, or more exactly, shows that my question wasn't the one I was really after. If MS really is able (or think they are able) to bind people to a contract before they can even begin to make a Windows application, then they don't need to invoke copyright law, and so their position does not illuminate the possiblities of that law. Well, this is not what I was saying, but read on. I was thinking of a program that was freely developed and compiled to run under Windows (i.e., with the Windows API), How can you use the Windows API without including for example Window header files? You can't if you don't have a fully compatible replacement library, which is not only API compatible, but also ABI compatible, so you don't need to recompile (eg a program which can be linked to Windows DLLs at runtime without using any MS licensed source code). As Ideas can't be copyrighted, only patented, under such circumstances MS would have no way to forbid redistributing such a hypothetical binary. It is really the same discussion as with a non-GPLed readline replacement. but which does not require any other MS product (like the VB runtime library) to accompany it. There is no legal difference between VB runtime libraries, header files and DLLs. It does matter how you produced your binary. If you can write a binary that can make use of the VB runtime lib without being compiled with Visual Basic, the situation is the same as above. Maybe such programs cannot legally exist, and the question becomes meaningless. Unless there is maybe some other proprietary platform, where users can actually get to own their copy of the software... Those programs can exist, but are difficult to produce. You would have to avoid carefully any reference to other peoples copyrighted material as header files etc. However, I can't see how this point is of interest in this discussion. Thanks, Marcus
Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 13:56:07 -0500 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my opinion, the biggest conflict isn't 6c (though 6c could be a problem to someone doing a local distribution in a third-world country). The biggest conflict is the combination of 3b and 4c. 3b says that Qt is proprietary to Troll (they own the code and can re-release it under any license whatsoever). 4c makes 3b a restriction on distribution. Just a tiny precision to avoid any confusion. As almost everybody except Andreas Pour seems to agree, the condition in GPL 2b that every part of the complete sources be licensed.. to all third parties under the terms of this License means that third parties should have all permissions given by the GPL with respect to them, not that they couldn't possibly also have more or broader permissions. Similarly QPL section 4c: 4. You may distribute machine-executable... provided that: c. You must ensure that all modifications included in the machine-executable forms are available under the terms of this license. only says that you may not deny any of QPL's permissions when distributing executables. The fact that you may not grant any additional permissions either (e.g., by removing restriction 3b on modifications) is simply a consequence of the fact that as Troll owns copyright on the executables, you cannot lift the conditions they place on distributing them. So 3b alone gives your conflict. Marc van Leeuwen Universite de Poitiers
Re: Is this DFSG-free?
On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: [ please keep me on the Cc: list. Thanks ] Hi, is this free: # Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and # its documentation without fee, and without a written agreement, is # hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and the # complete text of this comment appear in all copies, and provided # that the University of Virginia and the original authors are # credited in any publications arising from the use of this # software. # # IN NO EVENT SHALL THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA OR THE AUTHOR OF THIS # SOFTWARE BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, # INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, # ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, # EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA AND/OR THE AUTHOR OF THIS # SOFTWARE HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. what makes me ask is that it seems that redistributing the software for a fee is not allowed. Any suggestions for the author to make this DFSG-free? I think the fee applies to granting permission... no fee is needed to get that permission. Anyway this looks like the same licence imap has, which has been in main for quite a while now. -- Madarasz Gergely [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's practically impossible to look at a penguin and feel angry. Egy pingvinre gyakorlatilag lehetetlen haragosan nezni. HuLUG: http://mlf.linux.rulez.org/
Re: Is this DFSG-free?
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 02:01:33PM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: [ please keep me on the Cc: list. Thanks ] Hi, is this free: # Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and # its documentation without fee, and without a written agreement, is # hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and the # complete text of this comment appear in all copies, and provided # that the University of Virginia and the original authors are # credited in any publications arising from the use of this # software. # # IN NO EVENT SHALL THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA OR THE AUTHOR OF THIS # SOFTWARE BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, # INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, # ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, # EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA AND/OR THE AUTHOR OF THIS # SOFTWARE HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. what makes me ask is that it seems that redistributing the software for a fee is not allowed. Any suggestions for the author to make this DFSG-free? Why do you think it is any different from BSD license? It is basically a copy of it. No fee clause just means with no royalties to the copyright holder. The most free kind of license :) Luck, Alex Y. -- _ _( )_ ( (o___ +---+ | _ 7 |Alexander Yukhimets| \()| http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ | / \ \ +---+
Re: KDE not in Debian?
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 12:38:51PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: I maintain that unless the distribution of dynamically linked binaries itself is considered a copyright infringement, there's no vicarious liability either. And to come back to the static/dynamic distinction: an obvious and relevant difference with distribution of statically linked binaries is that the user can execute those without also having the library object file. Ok, let's pretend for a minute that distributing kghostscript is legal. What does that mean? Well, for one thing, it should be legal to make trivial changes to the source and redistribute. For example, adding -static to the CFLAGS in the makefile and redistributing should be perfectly legal. You've granted this right under the GPL. Now, let's say that I take this modified version of the sources for kghostscript and decide to chop out some of Qt, add in some code in from the Gimp, and in the process wind up creating a Qt variant where any display element will renders postscript. Imagine that, after a couple years of development, the resulting widget set is extracted out of the program and achieves great popularity. So Troll decided to exercise their rights, takes a copy of that widget set, cleans it up, and sells it under their professional license. Would you agree that each of these steps would be legal as a consequence of kghostscript being licensed under the GPL? Would you agree that this would be legal as a consequence of kghostscript being licensed under Qt? If not, why not? [By the way, I'm not trying to predict the future here -- feel free to treat kghostscript, Gimp and postscript as metasyntactic variables.] -- Raul
Re: Is this DFSG-free?
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 02:41:10PM +0100, Gergely Madarasz wrote: On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: [...] I think the fee applies to granting permission... no fee is needed to get that permission. That sounds right, afaict. # [...] provided # that the University of Virginia and the original authors are # credited in any publications arising from the use of this # software. Anyway this looks like the same licence imap has, which has been in main for quite a while now. The imap license has, instead of the above, ``and that the name of the University of Washington not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission'', which is almost the exact opposite. I vaguely recall that we've considered something similar non-free in the past (something to do with academic papers being written based on the calculations performed by the software), but I can't remember any of the details. :-/ Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ 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 pgpjtrsyR0o1c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?
Gosh, I hate to follow up to this post 3 times, but I keep thinking of more to say. Anthony Towns wrote: The problem with this is that most people aren't working from a intellectual property isn't perspective. Debian's webpages are Debian's, why should anyone else get any access to them? Sure, viewing them is a good idea, but why should they be redistributable? Well, I guess mirrors are okay. But what about modifiable? Well, translations count, but that's pretty limited modification. Why should we allow more? Ok, a hypothetical situation: A distribution is made based on debian and they would like to copy the portions of the web site that pertain to installation, and modify them to meet their changes. Despite the Corel SNAFU, Debian has historically had an interest in allowing for derived distributions. Arguing that anything else is hypocritical kinda misses the point. We're about distributing an operating system, programs, stuff like that. Web pages are completely ancillary, and they're already good enough. And documentation is ancillary too? I think _not_! -- see shy jo, in New York
Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?
Anthony Towns wrote: The counter-argument is to prevent people ripping off our work, or something. For example, some unscrupulous dot-com could take all the Debian stuff, setup www.debian.foo.xy in their country, and confuse newbies into thinking that they're the official site. And everyone knows that Debian would do *anything* to avoid confusing newbies, so this is a completely unacceptable situation. I also just realzed how completly similar this is to the type of FUD you'll hear from traditional software companies about the idea of open source software in general. Wake up, you have a dual standard. -- see shy jo, in New York
Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?
Anthony Towns wrote: The counter-argument is to prevent people ripping off our work, or something. For example, some unscrupulous dot-com could take all the Debian stuff, setup www.debian.foo.xy in their country, and confuse newbies into thinking that they're the official site. And everyone knows that Debian would do *anything* to avoid confusing newbies, so this is a completely unacceptable situation. As you should well know, we would be well within the bounds of the DFSG to write a license that prohitied modifying the web pages and then claiming they were the debian web site. -- see shy jo, in New York
Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?
Joey Hess wrote: AFAIK the reason content licenses are like this is primarily to prevent people from changing the content without changing the attribution (ie, would you like it if someone added a nasty paragraph to DWN and got it posted to /. with your name on it!?) In case you aren't aware, the DFSG allows clauses that prevent this by requiring the authors name be removed and/or that the name of the document be changed. Oh, I meant to add that in situations like that, lawsuits can be satisfying (I guess), but what you really have to do is get the record corrrected quickly, and legal mumbo-jumo in a license won't help much. -- see shy jo, in New York
Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?
Jason Gunthorpe wrote: I also don't entirely see how content falls under the social contract.. That 'S' in DFSG stands for software after all! Well, if you don't think the web site includes softtware, think again. However, in the more general sense, some of us belive that free documentation is just as important as free software. It's not all of debian, but there's certianly a sizable contingent. AFAIK the reason content licenses are like this is primarily to prevent people from changing the content without changing the attribution (ie, would you like it if someone added a nasty paragraph to DWN and got it posted to /. with your name on it!?) In case you aren't aware, the DFSG allows clauses that prevent this by requiring the authors name be removed and/or that the name of the document be changed. -- see shy jo, in New York
Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?
Craig Small wrote: OK, if it's all right by everyone I'll get something going so that the web pages are DFSG compliant. This doesn't mean I make the decision all by myself or do all the work, but I can act as a central point and make sure this does happen. Ok, great. Thanks! I guess the main questions are: 1) What should the license be? You might want to check the archive, I did think we had discussed this before and came to some sort of agreement. Unfortunatly, I'm not in a position to check this week. 2) Who needs to bless it? Legally, just SPI, since most pages on the web site assign copyright to them via the foooter #include. -- see shy jo, in New York
Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?
Per Lundberg wrote: TW == Tomasz Wegrzanowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes. Even RMS thinks there's a difference between art (poetry, books and IMO web pages) and software. TW Web pages are not poetry. That's not what I said. They are art. Art doesn't have source code in the same way as software. You've never looked at the debian web site source. Large quantities of source code are included. -- see shy jo, in New York
Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?
Per Lundberg wrote:
TW == Tomasz Wegrzanowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's not what I said. They are art. Art doesn't have source
code in the same way as software.
TW Perl programs doesn't have source code either.
Yes they have. There are even Perl compilers.
TW And web pages have source code : HTML.
HTML is not the source code. If you generate the HTML pages from SGML
input, that's source code.
The web pages are genenerated from large bodies of wml, which is a mixture
of html and perl.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/debian/webwml/english/template/debiangrep \\$
languages.wml
[TR:Bu sayfa a$aGdaki dillerde de mevcuttur:]
my $str = ;
$base_url = $(HOME);
$file = $(WML_SRC_BASENAME);
$cur_lang = $(CUR_LANG);
$cwd = `pwd`;
$full_base_url = canonpath($cwd/$base_url);
$rel_dir = relpath($full_base_url, $cwd);
chop $rel_dir; chop $rel_dir;
# printf STDERR base=$base_url rel_dir=$rel_dir file=$file
cur_lang=$cur_lang\n;
# printf STDERR $base_url/../$_/$rel_dir/$file.wml\n;
if ( -f $base_url/../$_/$rel_dir/$file.wml ) {
if ($_ ne lc($cur_lang) or $cur_lang eq Chinese) {
push @used_langs, $_;
# printf STDERR found file in $_\n;
$str = HR\nlangtext:BR\n;
$sorted_langs{$trans{$langs{$_}}{$_}} = $_;
$cur_lang = $sorted_langs{$_};
if ($cur_lang ne chinese) {
$str .= A href=\$file.$langs{$cur_lang}.html\$_/Anbsp;\n;
$str .= A
href=\$file.$langs{$cur_lang}-cn.html\$_nbsp;(GB)/Anbsp;\n;
$str .= A
href=\$file.$langs{$cur_lang}-tw.html\$_nbsp;(Big5)/Anbsp;\n;
$str .= \nBRA href=\$base_url/intro/cn\setlang/A\n;
return $str;
This is a part of the source to the debian website, which it is currently
illegal for you to modify.
--
see shy jo, in New York
Re: kde in debian
Andreas Jellinghaus wrote: so, you can look at my last kde package, i don´t think there very many new packages in the kde core with 3rd party sources. do you need me to look at every single file of kde to ensure there are no 3rd party sources in the kde core with potential for licence problems ? my guess is: they rewrote much code from the scratch, so there is far less 3rd party code in kde. Some was found, see Lists-Archives/debian-devel-0001/msg01113.html if some app is open source, debian should allow it to go in. no matter whether it uses gtk or kde or qt. lgpl´ed code is no problem, gpl´ed code with the statement from all authors to allow linking with qt is also fine. (- corel use of dpkg/apt). how can i help ? Convince KDE to make such a statement. They haven't. :-( -- see shy jo, in New York
Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?
Joey Hess said: I guess the main questions are: 1) What should the license be? You might want to check the archive, I did think we had discussed this before and came to some sort of agreement. Unfortunatly, I'm not in a position to check this week. Some of you discussed this before in private emails. As far as I can see from the archives both debian-legal and debian-www have some parts of the discussion but you can see large gaps in it. One of the emails (from Jay) even says please CC it to the webmasters because we are missing chunks of it. For example, I can see stuff like 'yeah that's ok but change the fourth paragraph to this '. Which doesn't make any sense if you don't have the original email. 2) Who needs to bless it? Legally, just SPI, since most pages on the web site assign copyright to them via the foooter #include. Great. We'll get something together then email SPI with the new license for their ok. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ, PGP: AD 8D D8 63 6E BF C3 C7 47 41 B1 A2 1F 46 EC 90 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIEEE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian developer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
