moving fceu to main

[Joe Nahmias]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello -legal eagles,

I currently maintain an NES (Nintendo Entertainment System) emulator for
Debian called fceu (FCE Ultra).  Although it is licensed under the GPL
it is currently in contrib since it is mainly useful to play non-free
ROMs (eg. Super Mario Brothers, Legend of Zelda, etc...).  I would like
to do what I can to move it into main.

I have found an NES game on the internet[0] that includes the (6502
assembler) source code and is licensed under a very liberal license (see
below for text).  I am thinking of packaging it for Debian to allow the
emulator I already maintain to go into main (in addition, it looks like
an interesting game concept).  If I go through with this (it will mean
packaging a 6502 cross-assembler in addition to the game so that the
game ROM can be built with tools in Debian), will this be sufficient to
allow the emulator to move into main?

The license/copyright for the game is:

Copyrights:
The source code and binary are (c) 2003 Halley's Comet Software.  They
may be distributed or resued [sic] in any way without express permission
so long as credit is given to the author.

Joe

 [0] 

PS - Please cc: on all replies as I do not subscribe to -legal.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFABM1OKl23+OYWEqURAkL8AKDK43Vcx1OV6BohrFgHOkFR/Y/70QCguUHA
8lcnVCQ4VxxwRQsJx/sQP0Q=
=GVHT
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Legal question about a model

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-01-13 20:36:09 + Roland Marcus Rutschmann 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


The software is totally under GPL but ships with a graphical 
head-model that 
is confined to the use with tempo itself. (And this model is needed)

Is there any other possibility than bringing it into non-free?


Convince them to place the model under a GPL-compatible free software 
licence.

Re: latex2html license: "A Letter to Leeds University", round 2

[Roland Stigge]

Hi Branden,

thanks for your suggestions.

Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:12:07 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> If it's not too late, I have a suggestion.
>
> Change:
>
> Changing the license terms would allow the program to return to our
> main distribution and facilitate the already large user base of
> LaTeX2HTML.
> 
> To:
> 
> Changing the license terms would allow the program to return to our
> main distribution and potentially further expand the already large user
> base of LaTeX2HTML.

I hesitated writing something like this because "expansion" possibly
shouldn't be the primary reason for someone who initially wanted to
prevent certain uses of the software.

> "facilitate" is not the correct term.

OK. Since your proposal still has the emphasis on the "large user base",
I will do the change if nobody else objects (also on the LaTeX2HTML
mailing list).

> Also, I am not sure that a
> copyright "vests" in a work.  It may do many things, but I am not sure
> that "vesting" is one of them.  OTOH, after dict(1)ing, I could be
> wrong.

Right, I also had to dict myself. :) But it seems to be OK.

> I finally suggest that the wording of these sorts of letters be
> discussed in plain text, and their near-final form reached before
> rendering them in TeX format.  It's much easier to discuss plain text on
> a mailing list.  Nevertheless you get style points for using LaTeX
> to write a relicensing request letter to the copyright holders of
> LaTeX-related software.  :)

Right. :) The current plain text version is:

==
Roland Stigge
Debian Developer
[address placeholder]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

University of Leeds
Computer Based Learning Unit
LEEDS, LS2 9JT
United Kingdom

Subject: The license of LaTeX2HTML

Dear Sir or Madam,

I'm a developer of the Free Software / Open Source project called
Debian (See http://www.debian.org/) and personally maintain the popular
package LaTeX2HTML (http://www.latex2html.org/) for it. This
conversion tool, designed to translate from the LaTeX publishing format to
HTML, was initially written in 1993 by Mr Nikos Drakos during his work with the
Computer Based Learning Unit at the University of Leeds.

The reason I am writing to you is that there is some uncertainty about the
ownership of the copyright that vests in LaTeX2HTML. Mr Drakos has signalled a
willingness to change the licensing terms for LaTeX2HTML but wonders if he
needs your permission or support to do so due to the fact that he was employed
by the University at the time of creating the software.  As a precaution, we
would like your written agreement to change the license terms for LaTeX2HTML
from its current license to the GNU General Public License (GPL)
(Verbatim copies of these two licenses are enclosed.).

The current license for LaTeX2HTML was unquestionably written as a Free
Software / Open Source license, however one aspect of the license causes the
Debian project difficulties.  The second clause reads:

   No fees or compensation are charged for use, copies, or
   access to this software. You may charge a nominal
   distribution fee for the physical act of transferring a
   copy, but you may not charge for the program itself.

This violates our self-imposed "Debian Free Software Guidelines"
(DFSG, http://www.de.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines), because
it doesn't allow the software to be sold. Debian is actually one of the least
commercial system distributions (not even directly providing physical CDs, DVDs
or support contracts) and is a wholly volunteer project as e.g. Linux itself.
However, a common way for users to acquire the Debian system is to purchase it
on CD or DVD from an independent vendor.

For this reason, the Debian Project has concluded that the current license does
not comply with our Guidelines
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00383.html
and follow-ups) and LaTeX2HTML has been removed from Debian's main
distribution. Changing the license terms would allow the program to return to
our main distribution and potentially further expand the already existing large
user base of LaTeX2HTML.

There are a number of arguments in favour of changing the license:

* The original author of the package, Mr Drakos, has signalled some
  willingness to change the license, and only wonders if he needs the support
  of the University of Leeds, which was his employer at the time he created it.
  Ross Moore, the current maintainer of LaTeX2HTML, also expressed willingness
  to cooperate.
* The GPL is a popular license in the area of Free Software / Open Source.
  In contrast to individual licenses like the current one for LaTeX2HTML, it is
  well known around the world and under constant review by the user and
  developer base to prevent legal problems (possibly like the one in question).
* As you will see in the current license itself, some parts of LaTeX2HTML
  are already licensed under the protection of the GPL. This 

Re: latex2html license: "A Letter to Leeds University", round 2

[MJ Ray]

I've been meaning to reply sooner, but parsing tex seems to have been 
too much effort for the free time available. :-/


On 2004-01-14 11:53:08 + Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Subject: The license of LaTeX2HTML


I think "Re: " is more normal for British letters and placed below the 
salutation.


The reason I am writing to you is that there is some uncertainty 
about the
ownership of the copyright that vests in LaTeX2HTML. Mr Drakos has 
signalled a


I'd replace "that vests in" with "of"

willingness to change the licensing terms for LaTeX2HTML but wonders 
if he
needs your permission or support to do so due to the fact that he was 
employed
by the University at the time of creating the software.  As a 
precaution, we
would like your written agreement to change the license terms for 
LaTeX2HTML

from its current license to the GNU General Public License (GPL)
(Verbatim copies of these two licenses are enclosed.).


It may be good to offer them the alternative to disclaim it. "As a 
precaution, we would like you to disclaim any copyright interest in 
LaTeX2HTML, or give written agreement..."


The current license for LaTeX2HTML was unquestionably written as a 
Free
Software / Open Source license, however one aspect of the license 
causes the

Debian project difficulties.


This seems just plain wrong. If it prevents any fee being charged, 
isn't that neither free software nor open source?


* Debian is not the only project distributing LaTeX2HTML. Other 
distributions of the popular GNU/Linux system like RedHat and SuSE and
  different BSD derivates also use LaTeX2HTML and probably have the 
same

  problem.


"...and will notice it in the future."?

--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Re: latex2html license: "A Letter to Leeds University", round 2

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-01-14 14:52:45 + Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I would prefer the current German DIN-Brief (Deutsche Industrie-Norm)
format, because I know it best. But feel free to recommend another 
LaTeX

document style.


I generally use \documentclass{letter} \usepackage[british]{babel}

Besides, isn't "Re:" the abbrev. for "Reply"? The letter is not a 
reply.


No, it is Latin (the ablative case of Res, according to the 
dictionary), roughly meaning "with reference to". This is part of why 
the "AW" prefix used instead by some German email software is a 
horrible thing. I may as well start prefixing with "Pri:".


It may be good to offer them the alternative to disclaim it. "As a 
precaution,
we would like you to disclaim any copyright interest in LaTeX2HTML, 
or give

written agreement..."

I don't think that this would be a good idea. While it could make them
hesitate to reply / agree to my questions, the benefit would be 
minimal.

After all, they (if at all) have only part of the copyright in
LaTeX2HTML.


I can't remember whether all copyright holders for a piece of software 
have to take part in an enforcement action.


btw: What do DDs with "written permissions" do? Is there a central 
place

to collect them?


If they're emailed, there's debian-email to put them in, but I don't 
know about postal things.


I will probably replace "written" with "intended". I hope this makes 
it

more clear.


Yes, I think it does.

--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Re: latex2html license: "A Letter to Leeds University", round 2

[Roland Stigge]

Hi MJ,

Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:26:53 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-14 11:53:08 + Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Subject: The license of LaTeX2HTML
> I think "Re: " is more normal for British letters and placed below
> the salutation.

I would prefer the current German DIN-Brief (Deutsche Industrie-Norm)
format, because I know it best. But feel free to recommend another LaTeX
document style.

Besides, isn't "Re:" the abbrev. for "Reply"? The letter is not a reply.

>> The reason I am writing to you is that there is some uncertainty about
>> the ownership of the copyright that vests in LaTeX2HTML. Mr Drakos 
>> has signalled a
> I'd replace "that vests in" with "of"

OK, since you are not the first DD who doesn't like "vest", I will just
change it. :)

>> willingness to change the licensing terms for LaTeX2HTML but wonders if he 
>> needs your permission or support to do so due to the fact that he was 
>> employed
>> by the University at the time of creating the software. As a precaution, we
>> would like your written agreement to change the license terms for LaTeX2HTML
>> from its current license to the GNU General Public License (GPL)
>> (Verbatim copies of these two licenses are enclosed.).
> It may be good to offer them the alternative to disclaim it. "As a precaution,
> we would like you to disclaim any copyright interest in LaTeX2HTML, or give
> written agreement..."

I don't think that this would be a good idea. While it could make them
hesitate to reply / agree to my questions, the benefit would be minimal.
After all, they (if at all) have only part of the copyright in
LaTeX2HTML.

btw: What do DDs with "written permissions" do? Is there a central place
to collect them?

>> The current license for LaTeX2HTML was unquestionably written as a Free
>> Software / Open Source license, however one aspect of the license causes the
>> Debian project difficulties.
> This seems just plain wrong. If it prevents any fee being charged, isn't that
> neither free software nor open source?

I will probably replace "written" with "intended". I hope this makes it
more clear.

>> * Debian is not the only project distributing LaTeX2HTML. Other distributions
>> of the popular GNU/Linux system like RedHat and SuSE and
>> different BSD derivates also use LaTeX2HTML and probably have the same
>> problem.
> "...and will notice it in the future."?

Rather, I think that even if "the others" know about, they just don't
care. But that's only my personal impression. (Am I too honest for this
job at legal issues? ;)

Thanks for your suggestions.

bye,
  Roland


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: latex2html license: "A Letter to Leeds University", round 2

[Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS]

Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Besides, isn't "Re:" the abbrev. for "Reply"? The letter is not a reply.

No, it's Latin, ablative singular of "res" (thing), which is also the
first element of "res publica" and part of several Latin expressions
used in English legal jargon.

Re: Re: Legal question about a model

[Roland Marcus Rutschmann]

Hi,

>>The software is totally under GPL but ships with a graphical head-model that 
>> is confined to the use with tempo itself. (And this model is needed)
>> Is there any other possibility than bringing it into non-free? 
>> Convince them to place the model under a GPL-compatible free software
>> licence.

That's not so easy. The author (or better his university) has licensed this 
model for the purpose of this program. So I'd had to either convince the 
company it was licensed from (which wants to make money with such models) or 
the university to pay more so this model can than be included in debian which 
I think is not very realistic.

I take the answer than as a complete "No".

Regards,

Roland
 
-- 

Roland Marcus Rutschmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
gpg-key: http://neuro.psychologie.uni-oldenburg.de/~rutschmann/ich/




pgpN3ZbgoENnr.pgp
Description: signature

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

[Branden Robinson]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:22:31PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > I'm tired of this argument.  You can interpret that as capitulation if
> > that's important to you.  We appear to have divergent premises.  You
> > regard trademark saber-rattling as potentially a friendly act.
> 
> That is a deliberately falsified and misleading statement of my
> position.

No -- it's your right to say it is an incorrect statement of your
position, but as for "deliberately falsified and misleading"...I'll thank
you to get your defective mind-reading device the hell out of my skull.

> I'm saying that I do not see any evidence of saber-rattling
> happening in this case. That's manifestly different from saying that
> saber-rattling is friendly in those cases where it does exist.

Fine.  As I said, I'm tired of arguing over the correct reading of tea
leaves with you.  For all I know, it's perfectly rational for you to
cope with trademark law as lightly as I think you do.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| "Why do we have to hide from the
Debian GNU/Linux   |  police, Daddy?"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Because we use vi, son.  They use
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  emacs."


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

[OT] Re: moving fceu to main

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 12:02:47AM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> I currently maintain an NES (Nintendo Entertainment System) emulator for
> Debian called fceu (FCE Ultra).

That's not how *I* pronounce "fceu"...

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny
Debian GNU/Linux   |that reading it will cause an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |aneurysm.  This is not that .sig.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Quake WADs (was: Packaging Linuxant's driverloader?)

[Joey Hess]

Branden Robinson wrote:
> I heard (on IRC) that someone wrote some DFSG-free WAD files for Quake
> -- some sort data set to facilitate a World War II battle simulation.
> 
> If this fact is validated, the quake packages might be able to be moved
> to main.  This is definitely something that can happen if the Free
> WAD(s) are packaged, and uploaded to main themselves.
> 
> Anyone know any more about this?

There is a project on sourceforge that has produced a usable set of
quake WADs. I tried it, it works without needing the shareware WADs, 
and the license is free. I forget the name of the project.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Fwd: Re: Since you designed the Debian 'swirl' logo...]

[Barak Pearlmutter]

Given the intransigence at the other end, and the clarity of the
situation, shouldn't this issue be bumped over to SPI?  It seems like
it is part of SPI's mandate to arrange for lawyers to send threatening
letters and to follow up on them as appropriate.
--
Barak A. Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Hamilton Institute, NUI Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
 http://www-bcl.cs.may.ie/~barak/

Re: Legal question about a model

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Jan 13, 2004, at 15:36, Roland Marcus Rutschmann wrote:


Unfortunatly there is a DFSG problem:
The software is totally under GPL but ships with a graphical 
head-model that

is confined to the use with tempo itself. (And this model is needed)
Is there any other possibility than bringing it into non-free?


You could separate the model out, put that in non-free, and put the GPL 
part in contrib. Hope that some day a free model comes along.

Re: moving fceu to main

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Jan 14, 2004, at 00:02, Joe Nahmias wrote:


Copyrights:
The source code and binary are (c) 2003 Halley's Comet Software.  They
may be distributed or resued [sic] in any way without express 
permission

so long as credit is given to the author.


Is it possible to get explicit clarification that distributing modified 
versions is OK?


Maybe just get him to use the X11 license, or 3-clause BSD, which seem 
to be what they're after?


Other than that, I don't see why you couldn't put it in main.

Re: summary of software licenses in non-free

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Jan 10, 2004, at 18:53, Glenn Maynard wrote:


On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:44:36PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:

(if it's even valid, bitmap fonts can't be
copyrighted in the US)


This doesn't help Debian; I think the "bitmap font copyright" thing
is an isolated strangeness of US law.


Then we can't distribute it at all, even in non-free.

All the problems I found with the x3270 license were of the form 
"either we can't distribute this at all, or it is free."

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Jan 12, 2004, at 02:45, Sven Luther wrote:


I have some doubts about this, since th GPL is all about distribution,
not use, and since we distribute the .el in source form and have them
compiled on the users system, and the actual linking only occurs at 
use

time, there is no way a GPL distribution restriction should apply.


How is this argument any different than the normal dynamic linking one?

If the .el source files use copyrightable material from emacs, be it 
copyrightable APIs, functions, etc., then they are derivative works of 
emacs. If they are derivative works of emacs, you must follow the terms 
of the GPL.


The GPL is about things that copyright law restricts, including the 
creation of derivative works. Not just distribution.


[ Yeah, I'm a little late on this... ]

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Jan 12, 2004, at 13:34, Sven Luther wrote:

The DFSG issue might be a different story, but even there, i am not 
sure

it is correct though, since the GPL cause problem at link time, not at
binary distribution time.


That is the same-old dynamic linking thing. Look at the archives of 
-legal regarding, e.g., OpenSSL.



And nothing is stopping us to distribute
binaries of the .el compiled by a non-GPL lisp compiler or something.


[ I know nothing of emacs or lisp. Please pardon the ignorance. ]

Do these binaries not depend on emacs at all? If that is the case, then 
they are not covered by the GPL; even RMS's message said that.


The problem arises if use material, like a non-trivial API, from emacs 
which may be copyrightable.



There .elc are, if we distribute them, not linked with any GPLed code,
and we never ditribute anything that might link this code with GPLed
code, since this linking is always performed at link time.


Actually, we do distribute something: emacs. I assume the package 
configures emacs to use these .elc files by default?


Would a court see dynamic linking / linking at runtime / whatever as 
just a technical difference from static linking, and consider that 
technical difference irrelevant for finding copyright infringement? I 
don't know, and I don't know of any caselaw that answers that.


Opinions on the issue are varied, and since Debian can't afford to 
fight it, and we would be doing our users a grave disservice if we made 
it their problem to fight it, we take the cautious (some would say 
paranoid) approach and assume the worst.



Of course, i may be wrong, or misunderstand the way emacs and its lisp
compilers work, but if so, please provide explanation to me.


I have no idea how it works.

If you want an argument to present to upstream you might try 
contacting

the FSF for a position on the subject.


Mmm. I might, but as it is debian packaging issues, i thought it was 
the

natural place for this kind of discussion.


It is, but as apparently no one on -legal is really familiar with emacs 
internals, [EMAIL PROTECTED] may be able to provide better answers.


After all, several prominent members of the -legal community, myself 
included, are devout vim users :-)