Some questions
As I do not know, how the "No Discrimination"-parts of the DFSG are interpreted, I wanted to ask about the Jabber Open Source Licence (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/jabberpl.html), escpecially about 9b) of it: Termination Upon Assertion of Patent Infringement. If you initiate litigation by asserting a patent infringement claim (excluding declaratory judgment actions) against Licensor or a Contributor (Licensor or Contributor against whom you file such an action is referred to herein as 'Respondent') alleging that Licensed Product directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then any and all rights granted by such Respondent to you under Sections 1 or 2 of this License shall terminate prospectively upon sixty (60) days notice from Respondent (the "Notice Period") unless within that Notice Period you either agree in writing (i) to pay Respondent a mutually agreeable reasonably royalty for your past or future use of Licensed Product made by such Respondent, or (ii) withdraw your litigation claim with respect to Licensed Product against such Respondent. If within said Notice Period a reasonable royalty and payment arrangement are not mutually agreed upon in writing by the parties or the litigation claim is not withdrawn, the rights granted by Licensor to you under Sections 1 and 2 automatically terminate at the expiration of said Notice Period. I do not understand court-english very well, but I understand as if you were able to discriminate against patent-holders by putting some code, infringing some patent they have, in the product, so that thay can no longer use it. As opensource.org sees it as free, while using rules built on the DFSG, I'm curious, how this part seen here. I'm curious, too, if something solely under this licence can even be modified and distributed by Germans. Is here someone knowing German law, who could say something, if I'm correct in thinking that article 8 "Disclaimer of Warranty." is void in Germany, and if yes, if "NO USE OF LICENSED PRODUCT IS AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER EXCEPT UNDER THIS DISCLAIMER." is also void then. Thanks in advange, Bernhard R. Link
Re: License question about prag
Scripsit "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 1) Source code for the entire package must be distributed with > any derived work incorporating ANY part of PRAG. > is a little vague though. Does he mean that I can not take a .c > file and place it in another work? What he presumably means that a derived work must not be distributed without the entire source for the derived work. I agree that the wording is not completely unambiguous. -- Henning Makholm "Hell, every other article you read is about the Mars underground, and how they're communists or nudists or Rosicrucians --"
Re: Some questions
Scripsit "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >| Termination Upon Assertion of Patent Infringement. If you initiate >| litigation by asserting a patent infringement claim ... alleging >| that Licensed Product ... infringes any patent, then any and all >| rights ... shall terminate. I think common practise her on debian-legal is to tolerate such clauses, based on the reasoning that it only harms people who try to use a software patent to take away the software's freedom. > I do not understand court-english very well, but I understand as if you > were able to discriminate against patent-holders by putting some code, > infringing some patent they have, in the product, so that thay can no > longer use it. You may have a point there. Of course the patent owner can keep his rights simply by not suing the author, but that would be beside the point if we really want to protect software patenteers against discrimination. The question is now whether a software patenteer is morally entitled to the same kind of protection as businessmen or genetic researchers. It might be argued that the entire concept of software patents is an enemy of free software, and that free software must be allowed to protect itself against it. I'd be inclined to agree with that. But it might also be argued that making exceptions even for software patenteers and child pornographers is a slippery slope which we should stay away from. -- Henning Makholm"I, madam, am the Archchancellor! And I happen to run this University!"
Re: diablo license
On Mar 29, "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It seems pretty clear to me that it is not DFSG-free. A DFSG program >needs to be usable on any operating system without discrimination, and >this license says you can use it on Linux without worrying, but if you >merely bundle it with, say, Solaris, then you have some special extra >obligation. Would removing or clarifying "or bundled" from the clause make it free? I understand the goal of this license is to keep some degree of freeness on derived work. >5. When this software or any work derived from this software is used in a > commercial product or bundled with a commercial product, the vendor must > also produce the program this software is derived from for either the Linux > or FreeBSD operating systems. The Linux or FreeBSD version of the product -- ciao, Marco
Re: diablo license
Scripsit Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >5. When this software or any work derived from this software is used in a > > commercial product or bundled with a commercial product, the vendor must > > also produce the program this software is derived from for > > either the Linux or FreeBSD operating systems. > Would removing or clarifying "or bundled" from the clause make it free? Together with clarification of "commercial product" it might be free. It must be possible, for example, to port the software to Windows and sell media with copies of the port (with source and under the original license) even though the port cannot be compiled under Linux/BSD. I.e., to make it free, "commercial product" must be defined such that it does not include data media with free software, sold for profit. It *would* be acceptable to say, for example, something like 5. In addition to the other rights granted by the license, you may distribute derived works under a proprietary licence, PROVIDED that you provide a version of the derived work that has identical performance, ability and price and works under either Linux or FreeBSD. -- Henning Makholm"I stedet for at finde på en bedre plan havde de alle sammen den frækhed at spørge mig, hvad *jeg* ville foreslå."
Re: Some questions
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > But it might also be argued that making exceptions even for software > patenteers and child pornographers is a slippery slope which we should > stay away from. What does "discriminate" mean, anyway? I think usually it means making an arbitrary or unnecessary distinction. In this case the patent infringement clause isn't there to punish patenteers; it's there to protect the software and its other users, and therefore justified, I think. A clause against child pornographers is unlikely to be justified in this way, so I would prefer to separate these two cases. Edmund
Re: diablo license
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mar 29, "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >It seems pretty clear to me that it is not DFSG-free. A DFSG program > >needs to be usable on any operating system without discrimination, and > >this license says you can use it on Linux without worrying, but if you > >merely bundle it with, say, Solaris, then you have some special extra > >obligation. > Would removing or clarifying "or bundled" from the clause make it free? > I understand the goal of this license is to keep some degree of freeness > on derived work. Maybe. It would be a *lot* less problematic, but I don't know for sure. RMS is amazingly good at figuring out these kinds of things. Doesn't mean he should be the last word, but when he gets to my mail on the subject (he has a big backlog), I expect he'll have something useful to contribute. Thomas
copyright question
This copyright notice seems free enough, as I can see they don't want any responsibility but do want credit for their work. Fair enough I think. :-) Is this ok for Debian? /* * Copyright 1992 Purdue Research Foundation, West Lafayette, Indiana * 47907. All rights reserved. * * Written by Kevin S Braunsdorf, [EMAIL PROTECTED], purdue!ksb * * This software is not subject to any license of the American Telephone * and Telegraph Company or the Regents of the University of California. * * Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose on * any computer system, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject * to the following restrictions: * * 1. Neither the authors nor Purdue University are responsible for any *consequences of the use of this software. * * 2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either by *explicit claim or by omission. Credit to the authors and Purdue *University must appear in documentation and sources. * * 3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be *misrepresented as being the original software. * * 4. This notice may not be removed or altered. */
more copyright issues
Going thru the files I found more copyright notices, the files have different copyrights (sorry for the wasted bandwith). It seems as if the code has been modified/written both at Purdue and Ohio State. Can this be accepted as free (for Debian)? Copyright (c) 1990 The Ohio State University. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that: (1) source distributions retain this entire copyright notice and comment, and (2) distributions including binaries display the following acknowledgement: ``This product includes software developed by The Ohio State University and its contributors'' in the documentation or other materials provided with the distribution and in all advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Re: copyright question
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 09:50:41PM +0200, Jörgen Hägg wrote: > This copyright notice seems free enough, as I can see they > don't want any responsibility but do want credit for their work. > Fair enough I think. :-) > > Is this ok for Debian? Looks good to me. It's in the general MIT/BSD family of licenses. > /* > * Copyright 1992 Purdue Research Foundation, West Lafayette, Indiana > * 47907. All rights reserved. > * > * Written by Kevin S Braunsdorf, [EMAIL PROTECTED], purdue!ksb > * > * This software is not subject to any license of the American Telephone > * and Telegraph Company or the Regents of the University of California. > * > * Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose on > * any computer system, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject > * to the following restrictions: > * > * 1. Neither the authors nor Purdue University are responsible for any > *consequences of the use of this software. > * > * 2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either by > *explicit claim or by omission. Credit to the authors and Purdue > *University must appear in documentation and sources. > * > * 3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be > *misrepresented as being the original software. > * > * 4. This notice may not be removed or altered. > */ -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux| // // // / / [EMAIL PROTECTED] | EI 'AANIIGOO 'AHOOT'E http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpewfzQ8gzbB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: more copyright issues
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 10:01:57PM +0200, Jörgen Hägg wrote: > Going thru the files I found more copyright notices, the files have different > copyrights (sorry for the wasted bandwith). > It seems as if the code has been modified/written both at Purdue and Ohio > State. > > Can this be accepted as free (for Debian)? This is DFSG, but code under this license is not GPL-compatible (clause 2 is reminiscent of the BSD advertising clause). The code under the license you posted previously (Purdue's copyright) *is* GPL-compatible. Just FYI. GPL compatibility can be important. > Copyright (c) 1990 The Ohio State University. > All rights reserved. > > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted > provided that: (1) source distributions retain this entire copyright > notice and comment, and (2) distributions including binaries display > the following acknowledgement: ``This product includes software > developed by The Ohio State University and its contributors'' > in the documentation or other materials provided with the distribution > and in all advertising materials mentioning features or use of this > software. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its > contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived > from this software without specific prior written permission. > THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR > IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED > WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. -- G. Branden Robinson |I suspect Linus wrote that in a Debian GNU/Linux|complicated way only to be able to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] |that comment in there. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Lars Wirzenius pgpfp4WtTsPES.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: copyright question
Jörgen Hägg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This copyright notice seems free enough, as I can see they > don't want any responsibility but do want credit for their work. > Fair enough I think. :-) > > Is this ok for Debian? Unfortunately, it lacks permission to distribute modified copies (which turns out to be a separate permission from those to modify and to distribute). But that's a hugely common problem. :) If you have any pull with the authors, ask them to explicity add permission to distribute modified versions. Either way, it's certainly fine for Debian.
Re: more copyright issues
Jörgen Hägg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Going thru the files I found more copyright notices, the files have different > copyrights (sorry for the wasted bandwith). > It seems as if the code has been modified/written both at Purdue and Ohio > State. > > Can this be accepted as free (for Debian)? This license doesn't permit modification or distribution of modified versions. That might be a problem; it would be good to ask the authors.
Re: copyright question
Scripsit Jörgen Hägg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Is this ok for Debian? Yes. -- Henning Makholm"De er da bare dumme. Det skal du bare sige til dem."
Re: more copyright issues
Scripsit Jörgen Hägg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Can this be accepted as free (for Debian)? Yes, it's basically a BSD licence. We usually tacitly ignore the advertising clauses... -- Henning Makholm "Nobody is going to start shouting about moral philosophy on my bridge."
Re: copyright question
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Unfortunately, it lacks permission to distribute modified copies "... and to alter it and distribute it freely"? -- Henning Makholm "Hele toget raslede imens Sjælland fór forbi."
Re: more copyright issues
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:03:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > This license doesn't permit modification or distribution of modified > versions. That might be a problem; it would be good to ask the > authors. Hrm, yes, I note upon review of the BSD and MIT licenses that the ones at issue are not worded quite as carefully. Still smarting from the University of Washington, eh? :-( -- G. Branden Robinson | Psychology is really biology. Debian GNU/Linux| Biology is really chemistry. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Chemistry is really physics. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | Physics is really math. pgpsTsBfnE0m1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: copyright question
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > > > Unfortunately, it lacks permission to distribute modified copies > > "... and to alter it and distribute it freely"? While all logic and reason might say that is good enough, it at least one notable case it wasn't: Pine. There are three separate things: A: permission to modify B: permission to distribute verbatim C: permission to distribute modified versions It is possible to grant both A and B without granting C; morover, grants are read narrowly, so the court presumes you are giving away fewer rights, not more, when the wording is ambiguous. It was only noted by the free software crowd that this is so fairly late in the game, as a consequence of the Pine license when the Pine people went nasty and anti-free software. Thomas
Re: more copyright issues
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Still smarting from the University of Washington, eh? :-( You betcha.
Re: more copyright issues
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit Jörgen Hägg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Can this be accepted as free (for Debian)? > > Yes, it's basically a BSD licence. We usually tacitly ignore > the advertising clauses... The advertising clause is usually thought not to be enforceable in the United States, but it definitely is in the UK.
The date? [more copyright issues]
I assume if these copyrights appear in the same source file, then they must all be followed? Haven't quite understod the importance of the date. These copyrights (and there are actually a few more without explicit copyright which I'm trying to locate) have different dates. How does the date work, if person A has copyright 1990, person B 1992, person C 1999 and D 2000? (For the same file.)
Re: The date? [more copyright issues]
Joergen Haegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I assume if these copyrights appear in the same source file, then > they must all be followed? > > Haven't quite understod the importance of the date. These > copyrights (and there are actually a few more without explicit > copyright which I'm trying to locate) have > different dates. > How does the date work, if person A has copyright 1990, person B 1992, > person C 1999 and D 2000? > (For the same file.) The date is irrelevant. It just defines when the copyright expires. The date is the date of publication. If I write A and publish it in 1999, it says "Copyright Thomas, 1999". Then you write B and publish it in 2000, and say "Copyright Joergen, 2000". Along comes Fred; he puts A and B together and adds stuff of his own. The result is "Copyright Thomas, 1999; Copyright Joergen 2000; Copyright Fred, 2001"; and this product can only be copied under the terms of all three licenses. As a general rule, don't think in terms of "source file" either; think in terms of "complete program"; or better, in the terms of however the author distributed the work. Thomas
Re: The date? [more copyright issues]
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 08:20:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > The date is irrelevant. It just defines when the copyright expires. Well, except in the United States, where copyrights never expire. :-P -- G. Branden Robinson | You don't just decide to break Kubrick's Debian GNU/Linux| code of silence and then get drawn away [EMAIL PROTECTED] | from it to a discussion about cough http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | medicine. pgp3iSOmQUnon.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The date? [more copyright issues]
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 08:20:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > The date is irrelevant. It just defines when the copyright expires. > > Well, except in the United States, where copyrights never expire. :-P It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Argh.
