Re: Non-free source package with downloadable parts
3(d) Any direct or indirect distribution of any Bundled Products by you shall be under the terms of a license agreement containing terms that: (i) prohibit any modifications to the Derivative Works or any part thereof, Ouch. Depending on what constitutes a derivative work, this wouldn't allow linking to _anything_ in main. (ii) prohibit any reverse engineering, disassembly or recompilation of the Derivative Works or any part thereof, Ouch. Same as above. [...] (v) require the user to comply fully with all relevant export laws and regulations of the United States to assure that the Bundled Products or any part thereof is not exported, directly or indirectly, in violation of United States law, Ouch. Debian can't do this, and your installer doesn't. BTW: Will libflash0 do the job? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Except that you can't make GPL code validate with the LPPL validator, since the GPL and LPPL are not compatible. So, since there's no danger that the code will be run through the validator and identify itself as standard, the GPL satisfies 7a. So the GPL is a valid license to relicense LPPL code under. (At least, that's my understanding.) I'm not sure that i understand Jeff here. the intention of 7a is that if FOO is under LPPL, then a derived work made from FOO honors 5a, ie, it does not claim to the user that it is the original FOO either via 5a1 or 5a2 (5a3 is irrelevant as this is a general do what you like for certain files, so for the discussion we can assume that FOO is not of this type) He's saying (assuming I'm understanding properly) that since you can't incorporate GPL files into latex (since the LPPL isn't GPL compatible) making a file GPL is enough to ensure that the file will never misrepresent itself to latex -- since it can never be used with latex at all. But I pointed out that one could imagine someone writing a GPL version of the latex base, in which case files intended to be used with the gpl latex (which are gpl'd, and perhaps based years ago on an LPPL'd file) could be put together with the LPPL latex. If that remote possibility is a problem, and from your comment it is, then there's no way I could relicense an LPPL'd file as GPL, even for use in my terminal emulation program (for example). -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Jeremy Hankins writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Except that you can't make GPL code validate with the LPPL
validator, since the GPL and LPPL are not compatible. So, since
there's no danger that the code will be run through the validator
and identify itself as standard, the GPL satisfies 7a. So the
GPL is a valid license to relicense LPPL code under.
(At least, that's my understanding.)
I'm not sure that i understand Jeff here. the intention of 7a is
that if FOO is under LPPL, then a derived work made from FOO honors
5a, ie, it does not claim to the user that it is the original FOO
either via 5a1 or 5a2 (5a3 is irrelevant as this is a general do
what you like for certain files, so for the discussion we can
assume that FOO is not of this type)
He's saying (assuming I'm understanding properly) that since you can't
incorporate GPL files into latex (since the LPPL isn't GPL compatible)
making a file GPL is enough to ensure that the file will never
misrepresent itself to latex -- since it can never be used with latex
at all.
it is probably pointless to speculate what he meant, the above interpretation
is in any case wrong as far as I can tell.
not sure what latex in your sentence refer to but
you can, of course, combine/run GPL packages with the base format
LaTeX-Format, there are a packages of packages licenced in this way
you can also produce a base format that is licensed under GPL und combine/run
packages licensed under LPPL with it. That base format could, for example,
omit the validation so that the user is not informed if a modified LPPL
package is being used.
But I pointed out that one could imagine someone writing a GPL version
of the latex base, in which case files intended to be used with the
gpl latex (which are gpl'd, and perhaps based years ago on an LPPL'd
file) could be put together with the LPPL latex.
yes you could write a NonStandard-LaTeX-format (under GPL) which would treat,
say,
\ProvidesPackage...
as an absolute noop. If \ProvidesPackage is the facility from LaTeX-format
referred to in the LPPL for the package FOO then a fork of FOO or a relicense
under 7a would mean that you would need to say, for example
\ProvidesPackage{FOO gpl version}
or whatever you like as long as you don't keep
\ProvidesPackage{FOO}
unchanged. For your GPL base format this would be a comment and disregarded
while if this gets used together with the base format LaTeX-format the user
would get the proper information.
If that remote possibility is a problem, and from your comment it is,
then there's no way I could relicense an LPPL'd file as GPL, even for
use in my terminal emulation program (for example).
i don't think it is a problem. you can not relicense an LPPL file simply as
GPL that is true, but you can relicense it as GPL plus a restriction given by
7a-5a.
so yes, this cannot be simply GPL without some strings attached, but i don't
think you should make that a point against the license; after all 7a is an
extra, other licenses often do not allow you to relicense derived works under
anything than the exact conditions of the original license, e.g., I can't take
your GPL code and use it and distribute the result under LPPL or under some
other license, can I (GPL 2b)?
frank
Re: Bug#188158: ITP: libjta-java -- JTA is the JavaTM Transaction API from SunTM
On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 11:36:30AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: Description : JTA is the JavaTM Transaction API from SunTM I think that Java Transaction API should be enough for the short description: `from SunTM' will be clear in the copyright file, and JTA is redundant (and not so self explanatory). I'm not sure you need to place `TM' after Java or Sun, so i'm Cc-ing -legal. ciao, -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][-A-Za-z]*[iy]'?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Infinite loop: see `Loop, infinite'.| something in common: they Loop, infinite: see `Infinite loop'.| don't depend on the language. pgpEJlG21h2iO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#188158: ITP: libjta-java -- JTA is the JavaTM Transaction API from SunTM
On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 11:57, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 11:36:30AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: Description : JTA is the JavaTM Transaction API from SunTM I'm not sure you need to place `TM' after Java or Sun, so i'm Cc-ing -legal. pisces:~$ apt-cache search linux | wc -l 1146 pisces:~$ apt-cache search linuxtm | wc -l 0 Regardless of whether it's necessary, it seems we don't do it. (Linux is Linus' trademark.) -- Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding. -- Bdale Garbee
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: you can, of course, combine/run GPL packages with the base format LaTeX-Format, there are a packages of packages licenced in this way Hrm. So using a package file with LaTeX-Format is not analogous to linking (i.e., doesn't result in a combined, derived work)? Have you confirmed this in any way, or is this your opinion? Because if there are GPL'd package files this may be an important issue. Especially if any of them incorporate GPL code from other sources. i don't think it is a problem. you can not relicense an LPPL file simply as GPL that is true, but you can relicense it as GPL plus a restriction given by 7a-5a. Ok. As you say, something can still be free and yet not GPL compatible. The only reason this would be a problem is if the GPL's viral properties come into play when used with LaTeX-Format. To me (IANAL) this seems likely since a package file is actually rewriting the base format, as I understand it. If so it's fairly important that the LPPL be GPL compatible, or that the GPL'd packages include an exception allowing linking with LPPL stuff. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Bug#188158: ITP: libjta-java -- JTA is the JavaTM Transaction API from SunTM
On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 01:13:58PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote: Regardless of whether it's necessary, it seems we don't do it. (Linux is Linus' trademark.) Shouldn't we include a file in our distribution in wich we state that Linux is a trademark of Linus, this is a trademark of that and so on (or perheps we already do, and i simply do not know). ciao, -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][-A-Za-z]*[iy]'?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Infinite loop: see `Loop, infinite'.| something in common: they Loop, infinite: see `Infinite loop'.| don't depend on the language.
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Jeremy Hankins writes: Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: you can, of course, combine/run GPL packages with the base format LaTeX-Format, there are a packages of packages licenced in this way Hrm. So using a package file with LaTeX-Format is not analogous to linking (i.e., doesn't result in a combined, derived work)? it is not at all like linking in my understanding. I take it that you are not familar with the TeX world. The best analogy that i can think of right now is this (there might be better ones): emacs binary TeX binary emacs core elc files LaTeX-Format vmsome package now emacs bin, the core elc files, and vm may all be under GPL but even if not would one influence the other? i seriously doubt it even if vm would rewrite several functions of the core elc files. it is using something together, eg my emacs lisp package might as well work with some other lisp if i'm careful or vice versa Have you confirmed this in any way, or is this your opinion? Because if there are GPL'd package files this may be an important issue. Especially if any of them incorporate GPL code from other sources. i must confess it is only my opinion, but i think it stands to reason. nobody ever suggested otherwise. i guess you would have a certain point on the level of the base format as that could be byte compiled (for speed reasons), ie the files making up the LaTeX format are usually precompiled into a single file but even that is not a requirement, you can load them directly. However, there is no GPL code involved and (will not be ever if that is a danger) i don't think it is a problem. you can not relicense an LPPL file simply as GPL that is true, but you can relicense it as GPL plus a restriction given by 7a-5a. Ok. As you say, something can still be free and yet not GPL compatible. The only reason this would be a problem is if the GPL's viral properties come into play when used with LaTeX-Format. To me (IANAL) this seems likely since a package file is actually rewriting the base format, as I understand it. If so it's fairly important that the LPPL be GPL compatible, or that the GPL'd packages include an exception allowing linking with LPPL stuff. i understand about the viral properties of GPL but i don't think they would apply to packages which are inidividual things that can be used seperately with several base formats are distributed separately etc. please tell us if you think otherwise. frank
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jeremy Hankins writes: Hrm. So using a package file with LaTeX-Format is not analogous to linking (i.e., doesn't result in a combined, derived work)? it is not at all like linking in my understanding. I take it that you are not familar with the TeX world. The best analogy that i can think of right now is this (there might be better ones): I'm not all that knowledgeable about latex, but I do use it and I have read the discussions here. So correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that a package file has a very intimate level of contact with LaTeX-Format (and, in fact, other package files that are currently loaded). It may rewrite other bits of code loaded by the TeX binary, and even if that's not happening it has virtually (completely?) unrestricted access (i.e., not restricted to an API) to the other code. Either of those seems to raise the possibility of creating a derived work. Whether anything's compiled and whether anything resembling linking is happening isn't really the issue. Chances are this wouldn't be all that serious of a problem in any case, though. As I said, GPL packages would need an exception to be used with LaTeX-Format, but since they're clearly intended for use with LaTeX-Format it can probably be assumed implicitly (IANAL, of course). The only serious problem would be if any of them incorporated GPL code from some other non-LaTeX project, where the author of that code didn't clearly expect their code to be used with LPPL'd code. I have a feeling this isn't terribly likely, but you know better than I. In other words, I'm just pointing out an issue to be aware of (or at least, for GPL-licensed package authors to be aware of), not something I think is a show-stopper. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for the sake of an argument, what about 1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message that it isn't the original package 2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages without making any other processing changes, you must use that. i don't think the wording is good, but that aside, would that lift your concern? I'd prefer just saying that the documentation must make clear what the provenance is.
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for the sake of an argument, what about 1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message that it isn't the original package 2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages without making any other processing changes, you must use that. i don't think the wording is good, but that aside, would that lift your concern? I'd prefer just saying that the documentation must make clear what the provenance is. I take this as a yes, though you do not like it, correct?
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd prefer just saying that the documentation must make clear what the provenance is. I take this as a yes, though you do not like it, correct? Neither.
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for the sake of an argument, what about 1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message that it isn't the original package 2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages without making any other processing changes, you must use that. i don't think the wording is good, but that aside, would that lift your concern? I'd prefer just saying that the documentation must make clear what the provenance is. The problem is still one of context. If there is some other program which reads what is output to the screen and its behavior changes, then it must be possible and legal to fake that output to the screen to fake out that other program.
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jeremy Hankins writes: I'm not all that knowledgeable about latex, but I do use it and I have read the discussions here. So correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that a package file has a very intimate level of contact with LaTeX-Format (and, in fact, other package files that are currently loaded). It may rewrite other bits of code loaded by the TeX binary, and even if that's not happening it has virtually (completely?) unrestricted access (i.e., not restricted to an API) to the other code. all statements correct, it is virtually completely unrestricted access Either of those seems to raise the possibility of creating a derived work. Whether anything's compiled and whether anything resembling linking is happening isn't really the issue. well that i don't believe at least not as long a as such packages are really separate entities that are only put together for a moment during use. To be honest, I don't really know for sure. But the tricky part is that I don't know that anyone else does either. The fundamental question (which isn't technical at all) is when two works, used in conjunction, become a derived work. I'm sure lots of other folks can give you a more knowledgeable answer, but in the end it boils down to a big question mark with lots of theories. At some point they clearly do (static linking is pretty well accepted as such a point). Other points (dynamic linking, which the FSF supports as creating a derived work) may be less clear, but my impression is that most people, even if they disagree, aren't certain enough to want to argue against it in court. Once they become a derived work the copyright of both works infects that of the other -- the GPL didn't invent it, it just uses this fact. But one of the ideas (I think RMS supports this view, but I can't find a reference) is that the degree of conectedness -- i.e., how intimate the connection is, is a good indicator of whether a derived work is created. If that's the case, LaTeX files would clearly create a derived work, since they're if anything more intimately connected than even static linking. Another argument for LaTeX files creating a derived work is the simple fact that, in at least some cases, they literally rewrite some of the code. This is a modification, which seems pretty clearly to make it a derived work. if that would be legally true then by the same argument then EvilDoer could dream up EvilLicense put it on on evil.el use it together with emacs and then claim that EvilLicense has an effect on emacs What would happen in that you wouldn't be able to distribute evil.el. It and emacs (or perhaps not emacs, since it's an interpreter which is a bit of a special case, but some other GPL'd elisp files maybe) together would be a derived work and thus to distribute you'd have to be able to meet the terms of the GPL for evil.el. In the end I (as an ignorant, non-lawyer) suspect that there is no clear answer to this question. But precisely because it's not clear anyone writing GPL'd LaTeX files ought to be aware of the possible consequences. Naturally, this problem would disappear if the LPPL were GPL compatible, which is a reason to shoot for that if possible. But it seems pretty clear that that's not compatible with your goals, so that's not possible. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Walter Landry writes: So if the LaTeX people become evil and later decide to change the format so that you get different behavior with non-validating files, then there has been a retroactive change in the licensing terms. What exactly the format is needs to be nailed down. good point. not in the license terms but in the result -- bad but again something along the lines of 1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message that it isn't the original package 2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages without making any other processing changes, you must use that. would take care of that, or not? (2) would apply only if not evil and if we turn evil you only have to do (1) I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure. You're saying you must either 1) notify the user or 2) use the standard method if it doesn't change anything That would mostly cover it, but I don't think that you're actually happy with it. Consider this: I make a fork of LaTeX called FubarTeX. The main feature of this reimplentation is that it aborts if it sees any attempts to notify by individual files. Now I can (indeed must) modify all of my LaTeX files to not do any notification. Since they're all intended to be run with FubarTeX, I'm free to distribute these modified LaTeX files. Actually, since LaTeX can be manipulated from the inside, it seems like it wouldn't even be hard to modify standard LaTeX to do this. All that you really need to do is redefine the notification macros to abort or do nothing. I could then distribute this redefinition along with my modifications, with the note that they should be used together. The basic problem is that the individual files are not the whole program. Trying to specify what is the intended interpreter leads to non-free conditions. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug: 111609 RFP for cathedral-book; license question
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 09:26:52PM -0400, Jay Bonci wrote: When looking at the RFP for cathedral-book at #111609, the license is mentioned as the Open Publication License 2.0. The only specific mention I see of that is at: http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml and http://opencontent.org/openpub http://opensource.org/licenses/ doesn't mention anything about this either These are listed as 1.0 versions. Is there a version 2 that I am not aware of, or are these (somewhat old) DRAFTs considered to be a version two of that license? Or is this just something that I'd have to break down and ask ESR for a copy of. Please reply-to-all, as I am not on the debian-legal list. Thank you, Heh, I just contacted the original ITP'er (Stephen Stafford) last week about taking over the ITP, and he said he'd never been able to clarify the license either. I emailed Eric Raymond about this directly, but I'm yet to receive a response. Sorry for not keeping the BTS informed, I'll forward Eric's reponse if/when I get one. -- Rob Weir [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ertius.org/ GPG keys: 1024D/1E73B7CD, 4096R/3ABDE5EC | Do I look like I want a CC? Words of the day: AUTODIN sniper attack clones BLU-97 A/B analyzer CIDA spies pgptYh2xfoSUs.pgp Description: PGP signature
