Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)
tag 212895 thanks I have attempted to remove the sarge-ignore tag (control is BCCed). Until there is evidence of explicit authorisation from the release manager this appears to be a clear procedural abuse. http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#tags sarge-ignore This release-critical bug is to be ignored for the purposes of releasing sarge. _This tag should only be used by the release manager; do not set it yourself without explicit authorization from him._ http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt Further to this, certain issues may be exempted from being considered release critical for sarge by the release manager. This is expressed by tagging the report sarge-ignore; this should not be done without explicit authorisation from the release manager. Regards, Adam Warner
Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 09:48:48PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: I question why the Debian bong should not also be under the same license. Cool. Where can I buy a Debian bong? -- G. Branden Robinson| If you want your name spelled Debian GNU/Linux | wrong, die. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Al Blanchard http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#212895: Official Logo is not DFSG Free (with patch)
On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 06:05, Adam Warner wrote: tag 212895 thanks Note that the sarge-ignore tag has now been removed. I located the correct syntax [tag 212895 - sarge-ignore] in a document referenced from http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer, i.e. http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control, and sent the correct commands to control. Regards, Adam
Request for licence assessment: spellcast
Here's the entire debian/copyright file from the package (version 1.0-14): ---[BEGIN spellcast/copyright]--- This package was debianized by Ben Gertzfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:43:26 -0700. It was downloaded from http://www.eblong.com/zarf/spellcast.html Original Copyright: The original paper-and-pencil version of this game was created by Richard Bartle ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). This implementation is by Andrew Plotkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). It is copyright 1993 by Andrew Plotkin. The source code may be freely copied, distributed, and modified, as long as this copyright notice is retained. The source code and any derivative works may not be sold for profit without the permission of Andrew Plotkin and Richard Bartle. After discussion with Richard Bartle and Andrew Plotkin via email, they decided it was okay to charge a nominal copying fee if Spellcast was sold as part of a CD set. Here's the relevant emails: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: spellcast To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 06 Oct 1998 02:42:27 -0700 BEN- The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. I have no problem with this. What I don't want is for some commercial game company to produce a version of my game and not pay me royalties for it. If it's part of a general collection of games, and it's OK by Andrew, then yes, his implementation can go on your distribution disc. I believe the intention of the license to Spellcast as it is intends to make it free software Yes, but the intention was that it be TOTALLY free. If people sell it for profit, then it's not totally free; if they charge for it to cover distribution costs, well, OK. ---[END spellcast/copyright]--- The problem that I have with this is that it doesn't allow commercial redistribution - in practice, putting all of our CD vendors at risk of a copyright infringement suit. I understand where the designer of the game, Rickard Bartle is coming from - he doesn't want anyone to exploit his game design to make millions for themselves without giving him a cent. But it does mean that it's not free enough for Debian (IMHO). Would anyone care to comment on my interpretation, specifically to support or rebuff my belief that this licence is not suitable for inclusion in Debian? I'd like more than my gut feeling before I file a serious bug against the package and petition for it's removal from testing (to avoid any more damage by not shipping it with Sarge). - Matt
Re: Request for licence assessment: spellcast
On 2003-10-06 14:00:59 +0100 Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would anyone care to comment on my interpretation, specifically to support or rebuff my belief that this licence is not suitable for inclusion in Debian? I support your interpretation. As stated, the licence discriminates against profitable distribution. The clarification suggests that their intention was to create an anti-commercial licence, not to make it free software in the normal sense. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ PM 8+9 Oct: visit me @ AFFS on .ORG stand, at www.linuxexpo.org.uk
Re: Request for licence assessment: spellcast
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Here's the entire debian/copyright file from the package (version 1.0-14): ---[BEGIN spellcast/copyright]--- This package was debianized by Ben Gertzfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:43:26 -0700. It was downloaded from http://www.eblong.com/zarf/spellcast.html Original Copyright: The original paper-and-pencil version of this game was created by Richard Bartle ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). This implementation is by Andrew Plotkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). It is copyright 1993 by Andrew Plotkin. The source code may be freely copied, distributed, and modified, as long as this copyright notice is retained. The source code and any derivative works may not be sold for profit without the permission of Andrew Plotkin and Richard Bartle. After discussion with Richard Bartle and Andrew Plotkin via email, they decided it was okay to charge a nominal copying fee if Spellcast was sold as part of a CD set. This software is still non-free software. Please check DFSG #1 (and #7). Here's the relevant emails: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: spellcast To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 06 Oct 1998 02:42:27 -0700 [...] The problem that I have with this is that it doesn't allow commercial redistribution - in practice, putting all of our CD vendors at risk of a copyright infringement suit. I understand where the designer of the game, Rickard Bartle is coming from - he doesn't want anyone to exploit his game design to make millions for themselves without giving him a cent. But it does mean that it's not free enough for Debian (IMHO). It is way worse than not being free enough for Debian. It's not just for the Debian CD vendors. A Free Software can be sold by someone without giving the original author a cent: asking otherwise is a misunderstanding of the Free Software definition. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Debian and the GNU Free documentation license
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 03:42:02PM -0500]: Hi folks, It's been a few days since my last message. I have added a print style sheet, so one can use a free Browser (mozilla) to print the position statement. I have added a couple of new examples, an inchoate software documentation freedoms list, and I have started an outline of the formal position statement at the top of the docs. That should develop into the integrated position statement we'll put to vote. Although late, thanks :-) The on-screen version for your document was *much* more readable than the one I printed to read while on the bys, with no CSS in order to make itbehave :) -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5630-9700 ext. 1366 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
I wonder if there's still any obstacle in the way of MPlayer's inclusion into Debian. -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team pgpYlbUv3yysv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Gabucino wrote: I wonder if there's still any obstacle in the way of MPlayer's inclusion into Debian. The most recent discussion is at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200307/msg01633.html There were two issues that were still being looked at as far as -legal's concerns go (perhaps they've been fixed by now?) Then it needs to be looked at by ftp-master and approved or rejected. The developer who is currently heading up the effort (afaik) is Andrea Mennucc. Andrea ought to be able to fill you in further. Don Armstrong -- If you have the slightest bit of intellectual integrity you cannot support the government. -- anonymous http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Japanese font license problem
Hi, I sent this announce to debian-devel yesterday, but send again for discussing this issue (thanks your advice, Branden). I've already sent BTS to each package maintainers. Thanks, -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear, Debian JP Project reports to Debian Project about Japanese fonts included in Debian archive and which has a serious license violation. Debian Project should case for this problem immediately. * Debian packages which receive influence o ttf-xtt-watanabe-mincho o ttf-xwatanabe-mincho o watanabe-vfont o ttf-xtt-wadalab-gothic o xfonts-intl-japanese-big o ttf-kochi-mincho / ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10 o hbf-kanji48 * background In June 2003, KANOU Hiroki who is one of the developer of Kochi font, FREE Japanese font, noticed that a part of characters in the Kochi font are closely similar to a font that is provided by the font vendor, TYPEBANK Co., Ltd. Kochi font is based on so-called Watanabe font and is diverting the part of the font. The same-looked fonts that is found in this time matches this Watanabe font. Watanabe font was certainly converted from LABO123 32-dot font which was distributed as Public Domain Software. As a result of KANOU's investigation, LABO123 32-dot font is same as the bitmap font (TYPEBANK Mincho M) that was developed by TYPEBANK Co., Ltd. and HITACHI Ltd. collectively, and copied without any authorization. Therefore, LABO123 32-dot font, Watanabe font and any other derivative fonts violate the license of TYPEBANK and HITACHI. In 29th September 2003, HITACHI announced as following: http://www.hitachi-printingsolutions.co.jp/topix/release/030929.html (It is not available in English yet.) o This 32-dot font is developed by HITACHI and TYPEBANK collectively, and both company have the copyright. Therefore, this font can not be used, published and distributed without agreement with both company. o In the case of diversion with Linux, that was no agreement. However, considering about the advancement of Linux and collaborating this movement, this font is available in the restricted situation. Those who want to use this font should make an offer to HITACHI PRINTING SOLUTIONS Co., Ltd. In addition, Hitachi, Ltd. replies to a questioner as following: o disable to distribute a AS-IS copied fonts (LABO123 32-dot font, Watanabe font). o restrict Kochi font to be non-profit use only. Conclude a license agreement between a Kochi font producer and HITACHI-TYPEBANK, and indicate the using of the copyright of HITACHI-TYPEBANK in the publish announcements and/or the instructions. Distributors should contact to a Kochi font producer, not HITACHI-TYPEBANK. How does the Kochi font will be distributed is decided with a creator of Kochi font, the target of distribution is not limited to the Linux systems. * response The following list includes the packages which is to be affected and our recommended response. o ttf-xtt-watanabe-mincho Watanabe font is required to be removed. stable: remove unstable: remove o ttf-xwatanabe-mincho Watanabe font is required to be removed. stable: remove unstable: remove o watanabe-vfont Watanabe font is required to be removed. stable: remove unstable: remove o ttf-xtt-wadalab-gothic It has Watanabe font in a small part of symbol character. stable: replace with fix or remove unstable: replace with fix or remove o xfonts-intl-japanese-big This package includes the problematic 32-dot font. Current stable and unstable include the upstream version 1.2, however version 1.2.1 is replaced with the problem-free font. stable: replace with the GNU intlfonts 1.2.1 or remove unstable: replace with the GNU intlfonts 1.2.1 ASAP o ttf-kochi-mincho / ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10 This package is based on problematic Watanabe font. Revision 1.0.20030809-1 and later are replaced with problem-free font. (In the case of Ghostscript 7, gs will be broken without applying the patch in Bug#205055, though.) stable: replace with 1.0.20030809-1 and later, or remove unstable: no problem o hbf-kanji48 48-dot font in this package is problem-free font. However, the sentence in the Description [and the vector font in the watanabe-vfont package.] may cause a misunderstanding. stable: needless to response unstable: fix the Description The distributed package files, media, ISO images are not required to get in back, but the next Debian Woody revision, Sarge and the future release are required to these responses. In addition, we recommend that users and vendors don't redistribute these problematic fonts. We will submit the bug report to the maintainers of each package and ftp maintainers to response this problem as the following this e-mail. (Translated into English by Nobuhiro IMAI and Matanuki. Thank you) Regards, - -- Debian JP Project Leader Kenshi Muto
