Re: Crack license, is it free?
I am a little surprised that nobody has replied, so as I am catching up on my mail I'll take a crack at it: On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 02:26:50PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote: > (please CC: since I'm not in the list) > > I understand that crack's [1] license (adjointed) is free, however, I'm > surprised its not in Debian yet (whileas john is). I just wanted to check > before packaging it (there's an ITP #82613 but it's almost 2 years ago), > since it sounds DFSG-compatible to me. > > Regards > > Javi > 1. You may make and give away verbatim copies of the source form of the > Standard Version of this Package without restriction, provided that you > duplicate all of the original copyright notices and associated > disclaimers. The give away here may be problematic, however see below: > 5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this > Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this Package. > YOU MAY NOT CHARGE A FEE FOR THIS PACKAGE ITSELF. However, you may > distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) > programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution > provided that YOU DO NOT ADVERTISE this package as a product of your > own. This is decidedly not DFSG free, it can go in non-free but it can't go in main. Zephaniah E. Hull. -- 1024D/E65A7801 Zephaniah E. Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 92ED 94E4 B1E6 3624 226D 5727 4453 008B E65A 7801 CCs of replies from mailing lists are requested. Be warned, I have a keyboard I can use to beat luser's heads in, and then continue to use... (=:] Mercury: Oh, an IBM. :) pgpYkZKiCqLjs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Crack license, is it free?
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 05:19:03AM -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > The give away here may be problematic, however see below: > > 5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this > > Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this Package. > > YOU MAY NOT CHARGE A FEE FOR THIS PACKAGE ITSELF. However, you may > > distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) > > programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution > > provided that YOU DO NOT ADVERTISE this package as a product of your > > own. > > This is decidedly not DFSG free, it can go in non-free but it can't go > in main. What part of this is not DFSG-free? -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Crack license, is it free?
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 05:19:03AM -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 02:26:50PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a > wrote: > > > 1. You may make and give away verbatim copies of the source form of the > > Standard Version of this Package without restriction, provided that you > > duplicate all of the original copyright notices and associated > > disclaimers. > > The give away here may be problematic, however see below: > > 5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this > > Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this Package. > > YOU MAY NOT CHARGE A FEE FOR THIS PACKAGE ITSELF. However, you may > > distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) > > programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution > > provided that YOU DO NOT ADVERTISE this package as a product of your > > own. > > This is decidedly not DFSG free, it can go in non-free but it can't go > in main. This is all just straight out of the Artistic License. DFSG 1 only says that you can't prohibit selling software as a component of a distribution, not that you can't prohibit charging for the package itself. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Timidity-patches eek
On Sat, 2002-09-07 at 22:19, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 07:10:24PM +0200, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote: > > I wonder how difficult will be to make a new set of patches for > > timidity... any volunteer? > > The timidity patches need replacing because they're crap. If they are > also non-free crap, they _really_ have got to go. In ages past, I tried > to get in contact with the guy who put together the Chaos Bank soundfont, > which is still the best freely-downloadable GM sample set I've heard, > though some of the percussion could be a little stronger. I dunno; I found Chaos Bank on www.hammersound.net and tried it. It sounds a bit funny and some of the samples are noticeably out of tune. I've always thought the Midia patch set was quite good, although back when I still used a GUS I thought the Gravis one was marginally better (and was half the size). But thanks for the pointer. I should be able to find something with, like, an actual license on that site. BTW, timidity handles soundfonts perfectly. It's just not in the documentation. If we can find a good GM soundfont, it would make a rather better timidity-patches than the 200 .pat files it has now. > Unfrotunately, there's no license, the host site is long gone, and the > author seems to have been hit by a bus or something. =( Still, you might > have more luck now than I did before, and it is a really good soundfont. What *is* it with patch set authors and licenses...? -- +- David Given --McQ-+ Did you hear about the hard-working but ill sage | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| who got cursed with garlic breath? He was a | ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | super-calloused fragile mystic hexed with +- www.cowlark.com --+ halitosis. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Crack license, is it free?
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 11:20:05AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > > > The give away here may be problematic, however see below: > > > 5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this > > > Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this Package. > > > YOU MAY NOT CHARGE A FEE FOR THIS PACKAGE ITSELF. However, you may > > > distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) > > > programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution > > > provided that YOU DO NOT ADVERTISE this package as a product of your > > > own. > > > > This is decidedly not DFSG free, it can go in non-free but it can't go > > in main. > > This is all just straight out of the Artistic License. DFSG 1 only says > that you can't prohibit selling software as a component of a > distribution, not that you can't prohibit charging for the package > itself. > Yes, from the Artistic License: 5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this Package. You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However, you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your own. You may embed this Package's interpreter within an executable of yours (by linking); this shall be construed as a mere form of aggregation, provided that the complete Standard Version of the interpreter is so embedded. Javi
Re: Crack license, is it free?
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > Yes, from the Artistic License: However, the Artistic License also has this: "Reasonable copying fee" is whatever you can justify on the basis of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, and so on. (You will not be required to justify it to the Copyright Holder, but only to the computing community at large as a market that must bear the fee.) Does the Crack license have a similar definition? It's important, because it pulls the teeth from the "reasonable copying fee" requirement. Richard Braakman
Re: Timidity-patches eek
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 02:19:55PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 07:10:24PM +0200, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote: > > I wonder how difficult will be to make a new set of patches for > > timidity... any volunteer? > > The timidity patches need replacing because they're crap. If they are > also non-free crap, they _really_ have got to go. The crapness I noticed quite some time ago. I've been using the eawpats set by Eric Welsh on my workstation for a while now, and it sounds quite considerably better. It's been on my todo list for months now to package this thing, but I've put it off because it's big, and I only have a 56k modem at present. Seems like an opportune time to get around to it. Most of the set is public domain, but it contains a few patches which have "no commercial use" clauses; notably, a couple of pistols and the entire analog drum set. I'm going to experiment with removing, replacing or remapping these, to try and create a free package (if I can, I'll upload it to main and the removed patches to non-free). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK pgp3ikbsn7sR2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Crack license, is it free?
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 02:18:42PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña > wrote: > > Yes, from the Artistic License: > > However, the Artistic License also has this: > > "Reasonable copying fee" is whatever you can justify on the > basis of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, > and so on. (You will not be required to justify it to the > Copyright Holder, but only to the computing community at large > as a market that must bear the fee.) > > Does the Crack license have a similar definition? It's important, > because it pulls the teeth from the "reasonable copying fee" requirement. > IANAL, TINLA, IANADD etc. (see also disclaimer.h in sig) It appears that the crack license has an even bigger exception for the DFSG to drive through: The fee restriction is entirely waved if crack is distributed as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources, provided "you" do not misrepresent the identity of the copyright holder. But yes, that definition is (word for word) in the Crack license too, see the original post. Notice, by the way, that the Crack license sometimes requires the source to be included in the binary package, since it doesn't contain the GPL exemption about "offering access from the same place". Jakob -- This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings, do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue. Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any. pgp91SCWifZJb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#82613: Info received (was Crack license, is it free?)
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and to the developers mailing list to accompany the original report. Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s): [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem, please send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED], as before. Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
