Re: Licensing requirements ???

[David Schleef]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:03:35PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote:
> > I am not aware of any MySQL problems; can you give a pointer to
> > what you are concerned about?
> 
> Especially Section 3:
> 
>

As I understand it, this falls under "linking with a GPL library".

> By-the-by, nice surname!  Whence comes yours?  In fact, other than thee
> `ee', instead of my `ei', yours is my father's name.

Heh, didn't notice that until you mentioned it.  Schleef is certainly
not common in the US, and everyone I've met that claims the name
appears to be related to me.  And then there's Einar Schleef, the
German playwright, and the Opel dealership that uses schleef.de.



dave...

Re: Licensing requirements ???

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:03:35PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote:

> > There are other things to watch out for, but you not modifying the
> > source of Debian packages, so it shouldn't matter.

> Basically, since we are _not_ modifying source to any software, I had
> always thought that this is a slam-dunk.  However, once I read that
> MySQL page, I have doubts.  Am I misinterpreting it?

Redistribution of GPLed software, or of works derived from GPLed
software, incurs certain obligations to also distribute the source code
to those works.  You should consult legal counsel for identifying the
exact scope of those obligations for your particular instance.

You should also consult legal counsel to determine which original code
within your product is a derivative work of the GPLed code you
distribute.  For Debian's purposes, we conservatively interpret this to
at least apply to any application written in C that links against a GPL
library.  This is not a universally held view, but it is also the FSF's
own stated interpretation of the license, and an acceptance of this
interpretation of the license is the most probable explanation for MySQL
AB's decision to change from LGPL to GPL licensing.

As Glenn pointed out, there is an LGPL fork of the MySQL client
libraries; available as libmysqlclient10 in Debian, it was forked from
the last known version of the MySQL code base that was released under
the LGPL, and therefore doesn't provide support for the newest MySQL
server protocols.  It also may go by the wayside before too long, since
the primary motivation for the fork was to support GPL-incompatible Free
Software, and MySQL AB has indicated some interest in continuing to
support such combinations in their new codebase (excluding only linkage
from proprietary applications).

Regards,
-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licensing requirements ???

[Michael D Schleif]

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003:10:10:01:09:49+0100] scribed:
> On 2003-10-09 20:01:36 +0100 Michael D Schleif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >My client wants to retain all rights to their software, and is not
> >willing to release their software in any `free' software fashion.
> 
> ...so this isn't a question about the licence of something that can be 
> in Debian?  I suspect debian-legal is not the best list for this.
> 
> >Everything other than the proprietary software is straight DEB
> >installed, so their is no issue of distributing modified `free'
> >software.  However, the MySQL licensing model seems to indicate that a
> >licensing fee is due them; and, I wonder about others.
> 
> I believe that you can supply MySQL for free or fee.  If you are 
> creating a derived work of it, you will need to read and understand 
> the terms of the licence, or buy a different licence from them.  IANAL 
> and this is an opinion, not legal advice.  If you have a more specific 
> question about MySQL licensing, MySQL AB are probably the best people 
> to consult.
> 
> >What are the repercussions to my client, as a result of this model?
> 
> How long is a piece of string?  I'd expect that they will get reduced 
> licence fees and no effective vendor lock-in.  Please seek legal 
> advice from a copyright lawyer with experience of free software 
> licences in your local jurisdiction.

OK, but I need to start someplace.  Based on my description, if response
consensus is that I do not have problems with Debian licensing, that is
more than I had when I posted.

If consensus is to contact each application developer, in turn, for the
Apache, PHP, MySQL and other included software; then that, too, is more
than I had before.

As I commented in response to David, I had always assumed that, so long
as we do not modify source code, GPL allows distribution of this sort.
Once I read the MySQL licensing page, I have doubts.

We want to do the right thing.  This is *NOT* a matter of whether or not
we can get away without paying for software!

Thank you, for your kind participation . . .

-- 
Best Regards,

mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know.  The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--


pgpsS8HFVLcy1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Licensing requirements ???

[Michael D Schleif]

David Schleef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003:10:09:17:01:55-0700] scribed:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 02:01:36PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote:
> > OK, this is my first foray into a sale-able product, based on `free'
> > software.
> 
> Congratulations.
> 
> > I am working with a company that is writing software that is to be sold
> > to their customers.  I have specified Debian as the OS on which this all
> > runs; so, here I am on this list to learn the ropes of `free' software.
> > 
> > Other than Debian, the software uses Apache, MySQL and PHP.
> 
> You seem to say below that you are using the Debian packages for these.

Yes, that is entirely true.

> > My client wants to retain all rights to their software, and is not
> > willing to release their software in any `free' software fashion.
> > 
> > Also, in order to manage problems and maintain SLA's, this software is
> > to be sold as an integral piece of a system -- somewhat of a blackbox.
> > In other words, their customers will pay one basic price, and receive an
> > installed hardware server, on which Debian and software are installed
> > turnkey.
> > 
> > Everything other than the proprietary software is straight DEB
> > installed, so their is no issue of distributing modified `free'
> > software.  However, the MySQL licensing model seems to indicate that a
> > licensing fee is due them; and, I wonder about others.
> 
> I am not aware of any MySQL problems; can you give a pointer to
> what you are concerned about?

Especially Section 3:

   

> > What are the repercussions to my client, as a result of this model?
> 
> One of the advantages of using Debian is that there aren't many
> reprocussions -- we attempt (but obviously cannot guarantee) that
> you do exactly what you are attempting to do.
> 
> Things you should watch out for, however:
> 
>  - Don't ship anything from non-free or contrib without checking
>the license carefully.
> 
>  - Don't specifically advertise the software you use, or if you do,
>make sure this is allowed by the license.  (I'm thinking of PHP
>here.)
> 
>  - Make sure your proprietary software doesn't link against any GPL
>libraries.  (Run ldd on the binaries, find the package each library
>is in using dpkg -S, and check /usr/share/doc//copyright.)
> 
>  - Ship a CD with the source packages corresponding to all the
>binary packages that you install.  This is to fulfill the GPL
>source requirement.  There are other ways to fulfill this
>requirement, but it is _much_ more cost effective to press a
>CD and include it.
> 
>  - Remember to provide some way (preferably automatic) for customers
>to install security updates.
> 
> There are other things to watch out for, but you not modifying the
> source of Debian packages, so it shouldn't matter.

Basically, since we are _not_ modifying source to any software, I had
always thought that this is a slam-dunk.  However, once I read that
MySQL page, I have doubts.  Am I misinterpreting it?

By-the-by, nice surname!  Whence comes yours?  In fact, other than thee
`ee', instead of my `ei', yours is my father's name.

-- 
Best Regards,

mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know.  The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--


pgpyD1oQowJM3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Licensing requirements ???

[Glenn Maynard]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 01:09:49AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> ...so this isn't a question about the licence of something that can be 
> in Debian?  I suspect debian-legal is not the best list for this.

I think questions like this are reasonable for this list, as long as
people don't expect a response, and understand that we're not giving
legal advice.

They may not be entirely on-topic, but they're closer than most of the
threads on d-devel are ...

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: Licensing requirements ???

[Glenn Maynard]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 05:01:55PM -0700, David Schleef wrote:
> > My client wants to retain all rights to their software, and is not
> > willing to release their software in any `free' software fashion.
> > 
> > Also, in order to manage problems and maintain SLA's, this software is
> > to be sold as an integral piece of a system -- somewhat of a blackbox.
> > In other words, their customers will pay one basic price, and receive an
> > installed hardware server, on which Debian and software are installed
> > turnkey.
> > 
> > Everything other than the proprietary software is straight DEB
> > installed, so their is no issue of distributing modified `free'
> > software.  However, the MySQL licensing model seems to indicate that a
> > licensing fee is due them; and, I wonder about others.
> 
> I am not aware of any MySQL problems; can you give a pointer to
> what you are concerned about?

MySQL's interface library was changed to GPL, from LGPL.  This isn't a no-
commecial-use (which would be non-free), but it has the same effect in most
cases.

I seem to recall there being an LGPL fork, though.

Alternatively, if you're not yet set on a database, you could use postgresql;
it's BSD-licensed.

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: Licensing requirements ???

[David Schleef]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 02:01:36PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote:
> OK, this is my first foray into a sale-able product, based on `free'
> software.

Congratulations.

> I am working with a company that is writing software that is to be sold
> to their customers.  I have specified Debian as the OS on which this all
> runs; so, here I am on this list to learn the ropes of `free' software.
> 
> Other than Debian, the software uses Apache, MySQL and PHP.

You seem to say below that you are using the Debian packages for these.

> My client wants to retain all rights to their software, and is not
> willing to release their software in any `free' software fashion.
> 
> Also, in order to manage problems and maintain SLA's, this software is
> to be sold as an integral piece of a system -- somewhat of a blackbox.
> In other words, their customers will pay one basic price, and receive an
> installed hardware server, on which Debian and software are installed
> turnkey.
> 
> Everything other than the proprietary software is straight DEB
> installed, so their is no issue of distributing modified `free'
> software.  However, the MySQL licensing model seems to indicate that a
> licensing fee is due them; and, I wonder about others.

I am not aware of any MySQL problems; can you give a pointer to
what you are concerned about?

> What are the repercussions to my client, as a result of this model?

One of the advantages of using Debian is that there aren't many
reprocussions -- we attempt (but obviously cannot guarantee) that
you do exactly what you are attempting to do.

Things you should watch out for, however:

 - Don't ship anything from non-free or contrib without checking
   the license carefully.

 - Don't specifically advertise the software you use, or if you do,
   make sure this is allowed by the license.  (I'm thinking of PHP
   here.)

 - Make sure your proprietary software doesn't link against any GPL
   libraries.  (Run ldd on the binaries, find the package each library
   is in using dpkg -S, and check /usr/share/doc//copyright.)

 - Ship a CD with the source packages corresponding to all the
   binary packages that you install.  This is to fulfill the GPL
   source requirement.  There are other ways to fulfill this
   requirement, but it is _much_ more cost effective to press a
   CD and include it.

 - Remember to provide some way (preferably automatic) for customers
   to install security updates.

There are other things to watch out for, but you not modifying the
source of Debian packages, so it shouldn't matter.



dave...

Re: Licensing requirements ???

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-10-09 20:01:36 +0100 Michael D Schleif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


My client wants to retain all rights to their software, and is not
willing to release their software in any `free' software fashion.


...so this isn't a question about the licence of something that can be 
in Debian?  I suspect debian-legal is not the best list for this.



Everything other than the proprietary software is straight DEB
installed, so their is no issue of distributing modified `free'
software.  However, the MySQL licensing model seems to indicate that a
licensing fee is due them; and, I wonder about others.


I believe that you can supply MySQL for free or fee.  If you are 
creating a derived work of it, you will need to read and understand 
the terms of the licence, or buy a different licence from them.  IANAL 
and this is an opinion, not legal advice.  If you have a more specific 
question about MySQL licensing, MySQL AB are probably the best people 
to consult.



What are the repercussions to my client, as a result of this model?


How long is a piece of string?  I'd expect that they will get reduced 
licence fees and no effective vendor lock-in.  Please seek legal 
advice from a copyright lawyer with experience of free software 
licences in your local jurisdiction.


--
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: GFDL and Anonymity --- another problem?

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:

> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> >> The copyright holder can be an individual or a group, but in any case
> >> an entity recognized by the law.
> >
> > Sure. But he doesn't have to identify himself, and certainly not by
> > his actual name.
> 
> I've seen lots of files copyrighted by "Monty" or "Xiphophorus".  Does
> anyone know who they are?

Monty's a real person, I know him.  Xiphophorus is, last I knew, the
name of his company or the moniker he uses to identify his stuff.

Re: GFDL and Anonymity --- another problem?

[Mathieu Roy]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) a tapoté :

> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> >> The copyright holder can be an individual or a group, but in any case
> >> an entity recognized by the law.
> >
> > Sure. But he doesn't have to identify himself, and certainly not by
> > his actual name.
> 
> I've seen lots of files copyrighted by "Monty" or "Xiphophorus".  Does
> anyone know who they are?

It can be a team. It seems perfectly ok as long as you can identify 
members of this team.

Xiphophorus is a company, isn't it?
 
> IMHO, it's just silly to not use your real name.  What is there to
> fear?

Hum, I suppose it is useful when you are doing something illegal in
the country where you live. And it is also useful when someone wrote
the code for a company (which is the actual copyright holder).



-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english

Re: GFDL and Anonymity --- another problem?

[Mathieu Roy]

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :

> On Thursday, Oct 9, 2003, at 11:49 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> >
> > A license is valid because there is a known copyright holder that
> > explicitely said that his work can be distributed under this license.
> 
> > So I wonder how it would be possible for a license to be valid with an
> > anonymous copyright holder.
> 
> I'd think so. Certainly the copyright is valid, and people can and do
> release,

Why is it certain?

> e.g., books under pseudonyms.

A book under pseudonym is not anonym. The fact that you do not know
what is the real identity of Emile Ajar does not make of his books
published by an anonymous.


You quoted the GFDL 4b:

List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified
Version, 

Well, what makes you think that in this case pseudonyms would not be
allowed?

 
> > The copyright holder can be an individual or a group, but in any
> > case an entity recognized by the law.
> 
> Sure. But he doesn't have to identify himself, and certainly not by
> his actual name.

I'm not able to find in the GFDL text any occurence of "actual name". 
I searched for "name" in the GFDL and found only the following lines:

39  A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of
88  A section "Entitled XYZ" means a named subunit of the Document whose
91  specific section name mentioned below, such as "Acknowledgements",
   162  C. State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the
   220  give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or
   231  copy.  If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but
   233  adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original

 > > Please, take a look a the section "How to Apply These Terms to
> > Your New Programs" of the GPLv2.
> 
> I'm talking about modifications to a program, not an original program,
> so this isn't quite relevant, but...

This is relevant to know which information must be at least in a GPLed
file. 

> >
> > one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it
> > does.  Copyright (C)  name of author
> 
> The only effect of leaving off the proper copyright notice (in the US,
> at least) would be that people could more easily claim innocent (did
> not know work was under copyright) infringement.
> >
> > Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and
> > paper mail.
> 
> Electronic mail can be fairly (or even completely) anonymous; and
> personally, I've never added a postal address to my GPL notices. I
> doubt it really matters.
> 
> > I would not be surprised if in many countries software with no author
> > is in fact a proprietary software.
> 
> I have no idea, though I don't see why that would be the case. It
> could just be that I'm a little biased by the US's --- and, indeed,
> the Internet's --- tradition of anonymous and pseudonymous works.

Anonym != pseudonym.

If nobody is able to confirm that he granted some rights over a work
(because nobody recognize being author of this work), there is no
reason to believe that you have some rights over this work.

If in the document it is clearly stated that there is no copyright
holder on earth, sure nobody would be able to sue someone. 
In any other case, an unfriendly copyright holder can suddenly appears
at any time. 
But it remains to be checked whether it is valid to claim that you
give away your rights as author now and for ever. 



-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english

Re: GFDL and Anonymity --- another problem?

[Måns Rullgård]

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> The copyright holder can be an individual or a group, but in any case
>> an entity recognized by the law.
>
> Sure. But he doesn't have to identify himself, and certainly not by
> his actual name.

I've seen lots of files copyrighted by "Monty" or "Xiphophorus".  Does
anyone know who they are?

IMHO, it's just silly to not use your real name.  What is there to
fear?

-- 
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Licensing requirements ???

[Michael D Schleif]

OK, this is my first foray into a sale-able product, based on `free'
software.

I am working with a company that is writing software that is to be sold
to their customers.  I have specified Debian as the OS on which this all
runs; so, here I am on this list to learn the ropes of `free' software.

Other than Debian, the software uses Apache, MySQL and PHP.

My client wants to retain all rights to their software, and is not
willing to release their software in any `free' software fashion.

Also, in order to manage problems and maintain SLA's, this software is
to be sold as an integral piece of a system -- somewhat of a blackbox.
In other words, their customers will pay one basic price, and receive an
installed hardware server, on which Debian and software are installed
turnkey.

Everything other than the proprietary software is straight DEB
installed, so their is no issue of distributing modified `free'
software.  However, the MySQL licensing model seems to indicate that a
licensing fee is due them; and, I wonder about others.

What are the repercussions to my client, as a result of this model?

-- 
Best Regards,

mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know.  The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--


pgpI74wwok13i.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GFDL and Anonymity --- another problem?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 09 Oct 2003 17:49:36 +0200, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> [Funny to see how some people here are more interested in finding
> new issues before making any constructive proposal to fix the
> existing ones>

I have been reliably informed by the author of the license
 that the development of GNU licenses is not a Debian issue, and as
 such discussions about changes to the GFDL are not for the Debian
 mailing lists. Given that, I would concentrate here on identifying
 all perceived lacunae in the license that would affect any decisions
 we make.  If you are interested in changing the GFDL, please take it
 to the appropriate list.

manoj
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00825.html
-- 
Jim, this is Janelle.  I'm flying tonight, so I can't make our date,
and I gotta find a safe place for Daffy.  He loves you, Jim!  It's
only two days, and you'll see.  Great Danes are no problem! "The
Rockford Files"
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 20:53 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:


That's irrelevant if they actually own the patent: the goal is not to
avoid getting sued, it's to avoid breaking the law.


With the number of software patents out there, if the goal is not to 
break the law (instead of not to be sued), I suggest the following 
command on master:


# rm -Rf /

If the patent is actively being enforced, we should certainly not 
distribute something that violates it. Otherwise, we tend to just 
ignore the patent.

Re: Japanese font license problem

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Wednesday, Oct 8, 2003, at 02:20 US/Eastern, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote:


No, the list includes outline fonts.  These outline fonts adopt
TYPEBANK font as a starting point of desigining.


In the US, the font itself (the "idea" of the shape of the characters, 
their spacing, etc.) can't be copyrighted. The "font program" used to 
express that to a computer can be.


Hence, bitmap fonts can't be copyrighted, because the expression to the 
computer and the font itself are the same thing. The expression and the 
idea merge.


So, in the US, you can copy the character shapes all you want, as long 
as you don't copy (for example) the actual PostScript code used to 
generate them.

Re: GFDL and Anonymity --- another problem?

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Thursday, Oct 9, 2003, at 12:05 US/Eastern, Dylan Thurston wrote:


Surely an "entity" is lose enough to include, say, a Chinese Dissident
Collective created on the spot.


I don't know if an entity has to be a legally-recognized entity (e.g., 
a corporation) or not --- hence the question mark in the Subject: field 
:-)

Re: GFDL and Anonymity --- another problem?

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Thursday, Oct 9, 2003, at 11:49 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:


A license is valid because there is a known copyright holder that
explicitely said that his work can be distributed under this license.



So I wonder how it would be possible for a license to be valid with an
anonymous copyright holder.


I'd think so. Certainly the copyright is valid, and people can and do 
release, e.g., books under pseudonyms.


If nothing else, at least the GPL allows me to put my changes in the 
public domain and still distribute them.



The copyright holder can be an individual or a group, but in any case
an entity recognized by the law.


Sure. But he doesn't have to identify himself, and certainly not by his 
actual name.




Please, take a look a the section "How to Apply These Terms to Your
New Programs" of the GPLv2.


I'm talking about modifications to a program, not an original program, 
so this isn't quite relevant, but...


one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it 
does.

Copyright (C)   name of author


The only effect of leaving off the proper copyright notice (in the US, 
at least) would be that people could more easily claim innocent (did 
not know work was under copyright) infringement.


Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and
paper mail.


Electronic mail can be fairly (or even completely) anonymous; and 
personally, I've never added a postal address to my GPL notices. I 
doubt it really matters.



I would not be surprised if in many countries software with no author
is in fact a proprietary software.


I have no idea, though I don't see why that would be the case. It could 
just be that I'm a little biased by the US's --- and, indeed, the 
Internet's --- tradition of anonymous and pseudonymous works.



[Funny to see how some people here are more interested in finding new
issues before making any constructive proposal to fix the existing
ones]


This is quite a low blow. I'd like to remind you that I was (and still 
am) willing to work on the committee that is working to rectify the 
GFDL; however, there are currently no open positions.

Re: GFDL and Anonymity --- another problem?

[Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS]

Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> So I wonder how it would be possible for a license to be valid with an
> anonymous copyright holder.

So, use a pseudonym. This is only a problem if you live in a country
where it is illegal to use a pseudonym and you are very law-abiding
dissident and cannot bring yourself to break that particular law.

If they ever try to ban pseudonyms in the UK I will start a campaign
for everyone to officially name all their children Robin Smith and use
unofficial nicknames to distinguish them. Maybe also introduce a
mating season to cause more date-of-birth confusion ...

Re: GFDL and Anonymity --- another problem?

[Dylan Thurston]

On 2003-10-09, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Several parts of the GFDL (e.g., 4b, 4i) seem to prohibit anonymous 
> modifications to a document. Quoting 4b:
>
>   List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
>   responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified
>   Version, 
>
> If this requires an actual name, it seems this might fail the 
> Chinese[1] Dissident Test.

Surely an "entity" is lose enough to include, say, a Chinese Dissident
Collective created on the spot.

Peace,
Dylan

Re: GFDL and Anonymity --- another problem?

[Mathieu Roy]

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :

> Several parts of the GFDL (e.g., 4b, 4i) seem to prohibit anonymous
> modifications to a document. Quoting 4b:
> 
>   List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
>   responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified
>   Version, 
> 
> If this requires an actual name, it seems this might fail the
> Chinese[1] Dissident Test.
> 
> Compare this to GPL 2a:
> 
>   You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
>   stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
> 
> I think "you" can reasonably be interpreted to include pseudonyms,
> thus preserving anonymity, or even not putting any name at all.

A license is valid because there is a known copyright holder that
explicitely said that his work can be distributed under this license.

   "0. This License applies to any program or other work which
   contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it
   may be distributed under the terms of this General Public
   License."

So I wonder how it would be possible for a license to be valid with an
anonymous copyright holder.

The copyright holder can be an individual or a group, but in any case
an entity recognized by the law.

Please, take a look a the section "How to Apply These Terms to Your
New Programs" of the GPLv2.

"How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the
greatest possible use to the public, the best way to achieve
this is to make it free software which everyone can
redistribute and change under these terms.

To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is
safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most
effectively convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file
should have at least the "copyright" line and a pointer to
where the full notice is found.
 
one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it does.
Copyright (C)   name of author

[...]
 
Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and
paper mail.  

If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice
like this when it starts in an interactive mode:  

Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details
type `show w'.  This is free software, and you are welcome
to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c' 
for details.

[...]

You should also get your employer (if you work as a
programmer) or your school, if any, to sign a "copyright
disclaimer" for the program, if necessary. Here is a sample;
alter the names:  

Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright
interest in the program `Gnomovision'
(which makes passes at compilers) written 
by James Hacker.

signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989
Ty Coon, President of Vice"

I would not be surprised if in many countries software with no author
is in fact a proprietary software.



[Funny to see how some people here are more interested in finding new
issues before making any constructive proposal to fix the existing
ones] 



-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english

GFDL and Anonymity --- another problem?

[Anthony DeRobertis]

Several parts of the GFDL (e.g., 4b, 4i) seem to prohibit anonymous 
modifications to a document. Quoting 4b:


List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified
Version, 

If this requires an actual name, it seems this might fail the 
Chinese[1] Dissident Test.


Compare this to GPL 2a:

You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

I think "you" can reasonably be interpreted to include pseudonyms, thus 
preserving anonymity, or even not putting any name at all.








[1] If Ashcroft gets his way with even more "Patriot"-Acts, then I think
we'll have to rename this test.

Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status

[Gabucino]

Mike Hommey wrote:
> You forgot the non-respect of the license of the libraries included in
> mplayer (you know, the thing having been brought in another branch of this
> thread).
I've checked the thread, but must have skimmed over it. Which is the library
in question?

-- 
Gabucino
MPlayer Core Team


pgplb6f79ZEyB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: committee for FSF-Debian discussion

[Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader]

* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-01 13:29]:
> I don't have any problems with Don personally, but I personally
> would rather we had a full-fledged Debian Developer as our other
> delegate to this committee.

Branden and I have spoken about this on IRC a few days ago, but I also
wanted to reply to the list.  While I agree that it's not ideal that
Don is not yet a Debian developer, I don't really think it's a major
problem.  He's definitely in a good position to represent -legal on
this matter and has my backing.  In fact, both Mako and I reviewed the
-legal archives again and think that Don is definitely a good choice.
He has also signed up for NM in the meantime, and since NM is working
pretty well these days it should only be a matter of time for him to
become an official Debian developer.  I have also talked to some other
people and asked them about their opinion, and there were no
objections with having Don on this committee.  I also tried asking
Bruce, but he hasn't responded yet.

> the stages of the NM process, pledged to uphold the Social Contract

He has agreed to uphold the Social Contract in private mail to me, as
I mentioned before.

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> The trademark restrictions could probably be written in such a way as to
> fall under the spirit of the "if you change it, don't call it foo"
> allowances.
> 
> We just need to be wary of any precarious slopes in doing so.

Agreed.

Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status

[Mike Hommey]

On Thursday 09 October 2003 14:24, Gabucino wrote:
> Gabucino wrote:
> > I wonder if there's still any obstacle in the way of MPlayer's inclusion
> > into Debian.
>
> Please list _actual_ licensing problems of MPlayer so we can discuss them -
> the purpose this list exists for.
>
> The following issues' discussion has started so far:
>
>  - libavcodec's possible patent infringements: even if they do exist, xine
>(which contains this library) was let into debian main.
>
>  - ASF patent: it seems there is an agreement that there is no reason to
> fear Microsoft on this part. However - of course - I don't want to say the
> final word; this is just my understatement so far.
>
>  - Win32 DLLs: current linux media players (including MPlayer) are more
> than able to live without them.

You forgot the non-respect of the license of the libraries included in mplayer 
(you know, the thing having been brought in another branch of this thread).

Mike

-- 
"I have sampled every language, french is my favorite. Fantastic language,
especially to curse with. Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de
saloperie de connard d'enculé de ta mère. It's like wiping your ass
with silk! I love it." -- The Merovingian, in the Matrix Reloaded

Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status

[Mike Hommey]

On Tuesday 07 October 2003 19:26, Gabucino wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > d, libmpeg2 - We - the core developers - do not intend to waste
> > >   time searching for modification dates and such (nor do we know
> > >   what exactly you wish for),
> >
> > All that's needed is to comply with GPL 2a [and probably for any other
> > GPLed libraries which you've included and modified from various
> > sources in mplayer.]
>
> So is there anybody who wants to do this?

What about... You ?
That is supposed to be an upstream duty...

Mike

Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status

[Gabucino]

Gabucino wrote:
> I wonder if there's still any obstacle in the way of MPlayer's inclusion into
> Debian.
Please list _actual_ licensing problems of MPlayer so we can discuss them - the
purpose this list exists for.

The following issues' discussion has started so far:

 - libavcodec's possible patent infringements: even if they do exist, xine
   (which contains this library) was let into debian main.

 - ASF patent: it seems there is an agreement that there is no reason to fear
   Microsoft on this part. However - of course - I don't want to say the final
   word; this is just my understatement so far.

 - Win32 DLLs: current linux media players (including MPlayer) are more than
   able to live without them.

While these topics can be important, I'd like if somebody would address
my original concerns too.

Thank you.

-- 
Gabucino
MPlayer Core Team


pgpuEHO3p8Li9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status

[Gabucino]

Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > So this is not a problem - again.
> (I've had enough of "Gabucino".  Re-plonk.)
Please no flames. If you think I'm wrong in something, please point me to
the facts.

-- 
Gabucino
MPlayer Core Team


pgpPT9Lajhrv8.pgp
Description: PGP signature