Re: Design Science License DFSG compatibility
Scripsit David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Note however, that a "you must change the name of modified versions" > > clause is not unproblematic, > Do what several maintainers have already done - release under a modified > name. (See nowebm, for example.) It's a possible solution from Debian's point of view. But it is not likely to be what the author intends to achieve by using such a license. -- Henning Makholm "You propose to avoid dying? I will be interested to hear the method you plan for this endeavour."
Re: Design Science License DFSG compatibility
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 05:52:04AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Kidsgames Project Coordinator - Jeff Waddell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > The text of the license is here > > > http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt > > I think it is OK wrt the DFSG. It is clearly a GPL deriviation, and > no fatal mistakes seem to have been committed in the deriviation. > > Note however, that a "you must change the name of modified versions" > clause is not unproblematic, though they are usually considered > DFSG-free. They make it difficult for Debian to react appropriately > with a situation where a critical security problem is discovered > with the package. Do what several maintainers have already done - release under a modified name. (See nowebm, for example.) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http/ftp: x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu It was starting to rain on the night that they cried forever, It was blinding with snow on the night that they screamed goodbye. - Dio, "Rock and Roll Children"
Re: Design Science License DFSG compatibility
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 06:10:04AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > It's a possible solution from Debian's point of view. But it is not > > likely to be what the author intends to achieve by using such a license. > That's *their* problem. The "you must change the name of modified > versions" clause is obnoxious and impractical. Which is the point I was trying to make. -- Henning Makholm "`Update' isn't a bad word; in the right setting it is useful. In the wrong setting, though, it is destructive..." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Design Science License DFSG compatibility
Scripsit Kidsgames Project Coordinator - Jeff Waddell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The text of the license is here > http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt I think it is OK wrt the DFSG. It is clearly a GPL deriviation, and no fatal mistakes seem to have been committed in the deriviation. Note however, that a "you must change the name of modified versions" clause is not unproblematic, though they are usually considered DFSG-free. They make it difficult for Debian to react appropriately with a situation where a critical security problem is discovered with the package. If the upstream maintainer is unavailable (such as if he's on vacation, has died, or has grown uninterested in the program), such a clause makes it illegal to release a fixed package under the same name. Changing the name means that already-installed unsafe packages will not be automatically unsafe, so the only secure course of action would be to "update" the unsafe package with an *empty* package. -- Henning Makholm "I Gudfaders navn og sønnens og den hellige ånds! Bevar os for djævelens værk og for Muhammeds, den forbandedes, underfundigheder! Med dig står det værre til end med nogen anden, thi at lytte til Muhammed er det værste af alt."
Re: Design Science License DFSG compatibility
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 06:10:04AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Note however, that a "you must change the name of modified versions" > > > clause is not unproblematic, > > > Do what several maintainers have already done - release under a modified > > name. (See nowebm, for example.) > > It's a possible solution from Debian's point of view. But it is not > likely to be what the author intends to achieve by using such a license. That's *their* problem. The "you must change the name of modified versions" clause is obnoxious and impractical. -- G. Branden Robinson | Experience should teach us to be most on Debian GNU/Linux| our guard to protect liberty when the [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government's purposes are beneficent. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Louis Brandeis PGP signature
Re: Design Science License DFSG compatibility
Scripsit David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Note however, that a "you must change the name of modified versions" > > clause is not unproblematic, > Do what several maintainers have already done - release under a modified > name. (See nowebm, for example.) It's a possible solution from Debian's point of view. But it is not likely to be what the author intends to achieve by using such a license. -- Henning Makholm "You propose to avoid dying? I will be interested to hear the method you plan for this endeavour." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Design Science License DFSG compatibility
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 05:52:04AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Kidsgames Project Coordinator - Jeff Waddell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > The text of the license is here > > > http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt > > I think it is OK wrt the DFSG. It is clearly a GPL deriviation, and > no fatal mistakes seem to have been committed in the deriviation. > > Note however, that a "you must change the name of modified versions" > clause is not unproblematic, though they are usually considered > DFSG-free. They make it difficult for Debian to react appropriately > with a situation where a critical security problem is discovered > with the package. Do what several maintainers have already done - release under a modified name. (See nowebm, for example.) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http/ftp: x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu It was starting to rain on the night that they cried forever, It was blinding with snow on the night that they screamed goodbye. - Dio, "Rock and Roll Children" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Design Science License DFSG compatibility
Scripsit Kidsgames Project Coordinator - Jeff Waddell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The text of the license is here > http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt I think it is OK wrt the DFSG. It is clearly a GPL deriviation, and no fatal mistakes seem to have been committed in the deriviation. Note however, that a "you must change the name of modified versions" clause is not unproblematic, though they are usually considered DFSG-free. They make it difficult for Debian to react appropriately with a situation where a critical security problem is discovered with the package. If the upstream maintainer is unavailable (such as if he's on vacation, has died, or has grown uninterested in the program), such a clause makes it illegal to release a fixed package under the same name. Changing the name means that already-installed unsafe packages will not be automatically unsafe, so the only secure course of action would be to "update" the unsafe package with an *empty* package. -- Henning Makholm "I Gudfaders navn og sønnens og den hellige ånds! Bevar os for djævelens værk og for Muhammeds, den forbandedes, underfundigheder! Med dig står det værre til end med nogen anden, thi at lytte til Muhammed er det værste af alt." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Design Science License DFSG compatibility
Hello, One of the projects spawned by the Kidsgames Project wishes to choose this license and I would like to know [before that choice is set in stone] whether it would prevent it from being included in Debian (my distribution of choice). If it is not acceptable please advise as to the approriate CONTENT license as GPL is not (in the mind of the author and apparently RMS as well; I seem to recall him putting out a different license for books) sufficient for CONTENT such as the art intended for this educational game. The text of the license is here http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt Please cc any responses directly to me as I am not subscribed to this list. Thanks in advance for your attention and dedication. -- Jeff Waddell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kids Games Project Coordinator main website at http://smluc.org/SIA/kidsgames/
Design Science License DFSG compatibility
Hello, One of the projects spawned by the Kidsgames Project wishes to choose this license and I would like to know [before that choice is set in stone] whether it would prevent it from being included in Debian (my distribution of choice). If it is not acceptable please advise as to the approriate CONTENT license as GPL is not (in the mind of the author and apparently RMS as well; I seem to recall him putting out a different license for books) sufficient for CONTENT such as the art intended for this educational game. The text of the license is here http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt Please cc any responses directly to me as I am not subscribed to this list. Thanks in advance for your attention and dedication. -- Jeff Waddell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kids Games Project Coordinator main website at http://smluc.org/SIA/kidsgames/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libapache-mod-fastcgi license?
Scripsit Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Open Market permits you to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license > this Software and the Documentation solely for the purpose of > implementing the FastCGI specification defined by Open Market or > I'm especially concerned about the second paragraph: distribution is > only allowed for a given purpose. It looks like a "we want to own the interface" clause to me. The real contents is likely to be that distribution etc. is not allowed if one modifies the program to support a different interface. Even in the worst case, Debian can safely say that it distributes this package to help its users further the specified purpose, which should be within even the most restrictive reading of the clause. -- Henning Makholm "Vend dig ikke om! Det er et meget ubehageligt syn!"
Re: Interbase Licence
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 22:45:07 +0300, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote: > Is this free? > Who will package it? http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-0003/msg00451.html HTH, Ray -- LEADERSHIP A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto- destructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
libapache-mod-fastcgi license?
ftp-master incoming contains libapache-mod-fastcgi aimed at non-free.
I'm (as ftpmaster) wondering about whether it can go to non-free or if
it cannot be put in Debian at all.
The license is this:
8<--
This FastCGI application library source and object code (the
"Software") and its documentation (the "Documentation") are
copyrighted by Open Market, Inc ("Open Market"). The following terms
apply to all files associated with the Software and Documentation
unless explicitly disclaimed in individual files.
Open Market permits you to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license
this Software and the Documentation solely for the purpose of
implementing the FastCGI specification defined by Open Market or
derivative specifications publicly endorsed by Open Market and
promulgated by an open standards organization and for no other
purpose, provided that existing copyright notices are retained in all
copies and that this notice is included verbatim in any distributions.
No written agreement, license, or royalty fee is required for any of
the authorized uses. Modifications to this Software and Documentation
may be copyrighted by their authors and need not follow the licensing
terms described here, but the modified Software and Documentation must
be used for the sole purpose of implementing the FastCGI specification
defined by Open Market or derivative specifications publicly endorsed
by Open Market and promulgated by an open standards organization and
for no other purpose. If modifications to this Software and
Documentation have new licensing terms, the new terms must protect Open
Market's proprietary rights in the Software and Documentation to the
same extent as these licensing terms and must be clearly indicated on
the first page of each file where they apply.
Open Market shall retain all right, title and interest in and to the
Software and Documentation, including without limitation all patent,
copyright, trade secret and other proprietary rights.
OPEN MARKET MAKES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE
SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY
WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN
NO EVENT SHALL OPEN MARKET BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY
DAMAGES ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO THIS SOFTWARE OR THE
DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR SIMILAR DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS OR
LOST DATA, EVEN IF OPEN MARKET HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES. THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION ARE PROVIDED "AS IS".
OPEN MARKET HAS NO LIABILITY IN CONTRACT, TORT, NEGLIGENCE OR
OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THIS SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION.
8<--
I'm especially concerned about the second paragraph: distribution is
only allowed for a given purpose.
Thoughts?
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Re: libapache-mod-fastcgi license?
Scripsit Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Open Market permits you to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license > this Software and the Documentation solely for the purpose of > implementing the FastCGI specification defined by Open Market or > I'm especially concerned about the second paragraph: distribution is > only allowed for a given purpose. It looks like a "we want to own the interface" clause to me. The real contents is likely to be that distribution etc. is not allowed if one modifies the program to support a different interface. Even in the worst case, Debian can safely say that it distributes this package to help its users further the specified purpose, which should be within even the most restrictive reading of the clause. -- Henning Makholm "Vend dig ikke om! Det er et meget ubehageligt syn!" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licence of SteelBlue
Scripsit "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 26 Jul 2000, Henning Makholm wrote: > > In a sense, the GPL also says something similar: roughly, "if you > > distribute modifications, you must give us (and everyone else, by > > the way) the same rights to your modifications as we give you to > > the original". > In my eyes GPL doesn't say "give us", but "give those, who receive this > program by you". Under the GPL, I must give the *rights* to everyone, because those who recive the program from me can pass it on to anyone, and this anyone also get full rights to my modifications. Essentially GPL says: 1) you must give your source to those you give binaries, but 2) you must give your rights to everyone. > > No. It's very common in licenses, free ones too, to say that the > > license terminates if licensee does not meet his obligations (which > > typically include not attacking the freedom of the program). > Is it about termination in other cases or was it about termination if they > want it to terminate? It is about termination if the licensee does not abide by the license. -- Henning Makholm "This imposes the restriction on any procedure statement that the kind and type of each actual parameter be compatible with the kind and type of the corresponding formal parameter."
Re: Interbase Licence
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 22:45:07 +0300, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote: > Is this free? > Who will package it? http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-0003/msg00451.html HTH, Ray -- LEADERSHIP A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto- destructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice on licensing terms
Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > I am considering to package for Debian a library whose licensing conditions > are the following: > > This software is free for non-commercial use. Implying it isn't for commercial use. It's not DFSG compliant. > It may be copied, > modified, and redistributed provided that the copyright notices which > appear within the library source files are preserved on all copies. The > intellectual property rights of the algorithms used reside with the > University of Manchester Advanced Interfaces Group. > > You may not use this software, in whole or in part, in support of any > commercial product without the express consent of the author. This is even more restraining. It's not DFSG compliant. Peter
libapache-mod-fastcgi license?
ftp-master incoming contains libapache-mod-fastcgi aimed at non-free.
I'm (as ftpmaster) wondering about whether it can go to non-free or if
it cannot be put in Debian at all.
The license is this:
8<--
This FastCGI application library source and object code (the
"Software") and its documentation (the "Documentation") are
copyrighted by Open Market, Inc ("Open Market"). The following terms
apply to all files associated with the Software and Documentation
unless explicitly disclaimed in individual files.
Open Market permits you to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license
this Software and the Documentation solely for the purpose of
implementing the FastCGI specification defined by Open Market or
derivative specifications publicly endorsed by Open Market and
promulgated by an open standards organization and for no other
purpose, provided that existing copyright notices are retained in all
copies and that this notice is included verbatim in any distributions.
No written agreement, license, or royalty fee is required for any of
the authorized uses. Modifications to this Software and Documentation
may be copyrighted by their authors and need not follow the licensing
terms described here, but the modified Software and Documentation must
be used for the sole purpose of implementing the FastCGI specification
defined by Open Market or derivative specifications publicly endorsed
by Open Market and promulgated by an open standards organization and
for no other purpose. If modifications to this Software and
Documentation have new licensing terms, the new terms must protect Open
Market's proprietary rights in the Software and Documentation to the
same extent as these licensing terms and must be clearly indicated on
the first page of each file where they apply.
Open Market shall retain all right, title and interest in and to the
Software and Documentation, including without limitation all patent,
copyright, trade secret and other proprietary rights.
OPEN MARKET MAKES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE
SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY
WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN
NO EVENT SHALL OPEN MARKET BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY
DAMAGES ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO THIS SOFTWARE OR THE
DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR SIMILAR DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS OR
LOST DATA, EVEN IF OPEN MARKET HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES. THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION ARE PROVIDED "AS IS".
OPEN MARKET HAS NO LIABILITY IN CONTRACT, TORT, NEGLIGENCE OR
OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THIS SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION.
8<--
I'm especially concerned about the second paragraph: distribution is
only allowed for a given purpose.
Thoughts?
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Advice on licensing terms
I am considering to package for Debian a library whose licensing conditions are the following: This software is free for non-commercial use. It may be copied, modified, and redistributed provided that the copyright notices which appear within the library source files are preserved on all copies. The intellectual property rights of the algorithms used reside with the University of Manchester Advanced Interfaces Group. You may not use this software, in whole or in part, in support of any commercial product without the express consent of the author. I think that the last paragraph makes it non DFSG-compliant, right? [Cc: replies to me, please, as I am not subscribed to debian-legal.] -- Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Licence of SteelBlue
Scripsit "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 26 Jul 2000, Henning Makholm wrote: > > In a sense, the GPL also says something similar: roughly, "if you > > distribute modifications, you must give us (and everyone else, by > > the way) the same rights to your modifications as we give you to > > the original". > In my eyes GPL doesn't say "give us", but "give those, who receive this > program by you". Under the GPL, I must give the *rights* to everyone, because those who recive the program from me can pass it on to anyone, and this anyone also get full rights to my modifications. Essentially GPL says: 1) you must give your source to those you give binaries, but 2) you must give your rights to everyone. > > No. It's very common in licenses, free ones too, to say that the > > license terminates if licensee does not meet his obligations (which > > typically include not attacking the freedom of the program). > Is it about termination in other cases or was it about termination if they > want it to terminate? It is about termination if the licensee does not abide by the license. -- Henning Makholm "This imposes the restriction on any procedure statement that the kind and type of each actual parameter be compatible with the kind and type of the corresponding formal parameter." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice on licensing terms
Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > I am considering to package for Debian a library whose licensing conditions > are the following: > > This software is free for non-commercial use. Implying it isn't for commercial use. It's not DFSG compliant. > It may be copied, > modified, and redistributed provided that the copyright notices which > appear within the library source files are preserved on all copies. The > intellectual property rights of the algorithms used reside with the > University of Manchester Advanced Interfaces Group. > > You may not use this software, in whole or in part, in support of any > commercial product without the express consent of the author. This is even more restraining. It's not DFSG compliant. Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Advice on licensing terms
I am considering to package for Debian a library whose licensing conditions are the following: This software is free for non-commercial use. It may be copied, modified, and redistributed provided that the copyright notices which appear within the library source files are preserved on all copies. The intellectual property rights of the algorithms used reside with the University of Manchester Advanced Interfaces Group. You may not use this software, in whole or in part, in support of any commercial product without the express consent of the author. I think that the last paragraph makes it non DFSG-compliant, right? [Cc: replies to me, please, as I am not subscribed to debian-legal.] -- Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licence of SteelBlue
On 26 Jul 2000, Henning Makholm wrote: > No, they *require* that the licensee licence his modification to > them, which is legal enough. In a sense, the GPL also says something > similar: roughly, "if you distribute modifications, you must give us > (and everyone else, by the way) the same rights to your modifications > as we give you to the original". In my eyes GPL doesn't say "give us", but "give those, who receive this program by you". And as I read the paragraph, it is about the copryright, not about rights to "use" it. (Where use shall mean use,copy,share,distribute,modify,...) > No. It's very common in licenses, free ones too, to say that the > license terminates if licensee does not meet his obligations (which > typically include not attacking the freedom of the program). Saying > so is strictly redundant, since that is the way contracts normally > work, but it does not harm if some paranoid lawyer wants to state > the obvious explicitly. Is it about termination in other cases or was it about termination if they want it to terminate? Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
Re: Licence of SteelBlue
On 26 Jul 2000, Henning Makholm wrote: > No, they *require* that the licensee licence his modification to > them, which is legal enough. In a sense, the GPL also says something > similar: roughly, "if you distribute modifications, you must give us > (and everyone else, by the way) the same rights to your modifications > as we give you to the original". In my eyes GPL doesn't say "give us", but "give those, who receive this program by you". And as I read the paragraph, it is about the copryright, not about rights to "use" it. (Where use shall mean use,copy,share,distribute,modify,...) > No. It's very common in licenses, free ones too, to say that the > license terminates if licensee does not meet his obligations (which > typically include not attacking the freedom of the program). Saying > so is strictly redundant, since that is the way contracts normally > work, but it does not harm if some paranoid lawyer wants to state > the obvious explicitly. Is it about termination in other cases or was it about termination if they want it to terminate? Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
