Re: Source Code of Music (was: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL)
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 22:56, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote: Somewhere on this planet, bandwith must be really cheap... 21715 Filigree Court, VA is one such place. Now if only power and space there were really cheap :-( signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GDB manual
Whether to change the GFDL is not a Debian decision, so I've decided not to discuss that here. Is there a public forum where you are willing to discuss that? Not now, and not in the way that some people want to discuss it (they throw stones at me while I stand there and get hit). They outnumber me, and I can't keep up with them, so I don't think it is useful to try.
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 16:37, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: Sure, and it's also perfectly plausible that RMS is a secret employee of Microsoft and Chinese double agent plotting the use of free software to assassinate the Dalai Lama. But this is debian-legal not debian-wacko-conspiracy-theory. The FSF has already used a copyright assignment against the wishes of the original author of the documentation, who objects to the added invariant sections. This assertion, by the author, has been made publicly on this mailing list. It is in the archive at: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00256.html Consider the current SCO/IBM brouhaha - it's a shame the FSF doesn't have assignments for the Linux kernel which would put it in a position to stand up for the community against SCO's bullying. Yeah, it's really a shame that instead of the underfunded FSF standing up to SCO its IBM's over-funded legal department[1]. And several other people (like LinuxTag) are taking on SCO, too. The FSF could join in if it felt like it. And --- this just in --- SCO isn't doing to well; they've been ordered to shut up.[0] It is no coincidence that SCO chose to attack something that the FSF doesn't have legal paperwork on. Sure it is. Attacking linux makes more press than attacking gcc or hurd. [0] http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1114885,00.asp [1] If anything, IBM's legal pockets are deeper than Microsoft's, and the company is no stranger to controversial legal entanglements. So far, IBM shows no sign of caving. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1115134,00.asp signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Open Software License
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 16:16, Joey Hess wrote: c) to distribute copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public, with the proviso that copies of Original Work or Derivative Works that You distribute shall be licensed under the Open Software License; ... 3) Grant of Source Code License. The term Source Code means the preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and all available documentation describing how to access and modify the Original Work. Licensor hereby agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original Work that Licensor distributes. Damn is that a weird way to phrase copyleft. I'm not sure its enforceable, quite frankly. How can a copyright license put demands on the copyright holder? 5) External Deployment. The term External Deployment means the use or distribution of the Original Work or Derivative Works in any way such that the Original Work or Derivative Works may be accessed or used by anyone other than You, [...] Already noted by another poster as non-free. Gotta wonder how to comply with this one if, e.g, I decide to use it as part of a router. 6) Warranty and Disclaimer of Warranty. LICENSOR WARRANTS THAT THE COPYRIGHT IN AND TO THE ORIGINAL WORK IS OWNED BY THE LICENSOR OR THAT THE ORIGINAL WORK IS DISTRIBUTED BY LICENSOR UNDER A VALID CURRENT LICENSE FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. Wow, that's taking on a lot of liability, at least compare to normal open source works. 9) Mutual Termination for Patent Action. This License shall terminate automatically and You may no longer exercise any of the rights granted to You by this License if You file a lawsuit in any court alleging that any OSI Certified open source software that is licensed under any license containing this Mutual Termination for Patent Action clause infringes any patent claims that are essential to use that software. Hmmm, too bad its so easy to get around that clause, methinks... No, we didn't sue you --- our wholly-owned subsidiary did! 10) Jurisdiction, Venue and Governing Law. You agree that any lawsuit arising under or relating to this License shall be maintained in the courts of the jurisdiction wherein the Licensor resides or in which Licensor conducts its primary business, and under the laws of that jurisdiction excluding its conflict-of-law provisions. Haven't we rejected these clauses before? This is no different than Under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, United States except its much more confusing (where does the licensor live today?) The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. WTF is this convention, anyway? Everyone seems to exclude it. Any use of the Original Work outside the scope of this License or after its termination shall be subject to the requirements and penalties of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., the equivalent laws of other countries, and international treaty. This section shall survive the termination of this License. (If you break the law, you are subject to the penalties for breaking the law --- what a surprise! Anyone want to change Title 17 to Title 51?) 13) Definition of You in This License. You throughout this License, whether in upper or lower case, means an individual or a legal entity exercising rights under, and complying with all of the terms of, this License. Nice way to define section 9 right out of existence. After all a You in section 9 is not complying with the license... For legal entities, You includes any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with you. For purposes of this definition, control means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity. Well, at least that closes the wholly-owned subsidiary problem. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GPL exception ???
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 01:57:08PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: I hope the copyright holder realizes that this restriction is unenforceable under copyright law if the source code and documentation are rewritten such that they are no longer derivative works. I don't disagree, but I think I'm missing something WRT the reason for your comment. It never crossed my mind that a license author would expect such a restriction to apply to original works. In this case, it even says Derivative works must I'm not convinced that the author of the blurb in questions understands derivative works the same way I do. His stance seems considerably more militant than even a fairly strong reading of copyright law would permit. -- G. Branden Robinson| Good judgement comes from Debian GNU/Linux | experience; experience comes from [EMAIL PROTECTED] | bad judgement. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Fred Brooks pgpp3fYbv3hIo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open Software License
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry said on Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 07:46:52PM -0700,: I presume this document has been discussed elsewhere, has Mr. Rosen spoken on these matters? From what I have seen of him on the Net, he seems willing to discuss such matters. I subscribe to the license-discuss list; but do not recall any discussion there on the lines of 'forced redistribution is not free'. The archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 Regards, Mahesh T. Pai -- +==+ Mahesh T. Pai, Advocate, 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, http://in.geocities.com/paivakil Kerala, India. +==+
Re: Open Software License
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry said on Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 07:46:52PM -0700,: I presume this document has been discussed elsewhere, has Mr. Rosen spoken on these matters? From what I have seen of him on the Net, he seems willing to discuss such matters. On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Mahesh T. Pai wrote: I subscribe to the license-discuss list; but do not recall any discussion there on the lines of 'forced redistribution is not free'. The OSI license-discuss list doesn't operate in the same way that debian-legal does, and doesn't seem to have the same body of consensus about topics not directly covered by the OSD. There was an inconclusive thread about this in April (sorry for the link, I couldn't find a better one easily) http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:6543:200303:nepgjjjogdajaicmedhi#b I believe Debian takes a much stronger stance. I hope the external deployment section of this license will be considered non-free. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: Bug #189164: libdbd-mysql-perl uses GPL lib, may be used by GPL-incompatible apps
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 12:20:39PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Steve Langasek wrote: It is not mere aggregation, for the same reason that a bug in a library that makes it unusable by applications is a grave, not a critical, bug: one piece of software is not unrelated to another if the former depends on the latter. Ah, I get what I was missing earlier... so you're claiming that there's a legal status for a combination C of A and B, which does *not* make C a derived work derived from work B, but where C is also not a mere aggregation of work A with work B. I don't think there is. I could be wrong, of course. IANAL. I'm sorry -- IANAL either, and I was not aware that mere aggregation was a legal term at all. I'm discussing the concepts, as present in the DFSG and the GPL, and explaining why I believe that, if the GPL places requirements on applications that use GPL libs, this doesn't violate DFSG#9. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgp3D16YphSsq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open Software License
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 16:16, Joey Hess wrote: 10) Jurisdiction, Venue and Governing Law. You agree that any lawsuit arising under or relating to this License shall be maintained in the courts of the jurisdiction wherein the Licensor resides or in which Licensor conducts its primary business, and under the laws of that jurisdiction excluding its conflict-of-law provisions. Haven't we rejected these clauses before? This is no different than Under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, United States except its much more confusing (where does the licensor live today?) I don't think so. It isn't GPL compatible, which is why there was a big fuss about the Python license. But it wasn't considered non-free. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
