Re: license for Federal Information Processing Standards

[Giacomo A. Catenazzi]

Brian M. Carlson wrote:


On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 04:12:28PM -0500, Hubert Chan wrote:


As mentioned in my previous mail, I am creating a package for
hashcash.  The source for the package includes a document,
fip180-1.txt, which is a copy of the Federal Information Processing
Standards Publication 180-1 (the definition for SHA-1).  I am unable to
determine whether or not FIPS documents are free, and was wondering if
anyone had any experience with that.

The FIPS home page is: http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/

Again, please cc me as I am not subscribed.



All works of the United States Government (of which FIPS 180-1 is one)
are ineligible for copyright and are explicitly public domain.


There are public domain only in the United States, IIRC

cate

Re: free licensing of TEI Guidelines

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Is there any good reason that I'd ever want to infringe on TEI's
> namespace, as opposed to using my own? I was under the impression that
> the whole point of namespaces was to make it clear what standard
> something comes from, and to prevent collisions.

Remember that freedom is also the freedom to do things that others
cannot see any good reason to do.

And if some bad guy writes a program that attaches special meaning to
elements in the "wrong" namespace, it should certainly be allowed for
good guys to derive a document that describes the behavior of the bad
guy's program.

-- 
Henning Makholm   "We will discuss your youth another time."

Re: free licensing of TEI Guidelines

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-02-25 00:28:59 + Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



trademarks cannot be applied to functional elements, and a namespace
seems like a functional element


Trademarks need not be used. Does "passing off" (and similar laws 
about impersonation) apply to namespaces?


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
New Owner of TehLawyerBombsRUs, purveyors of fine munged licensing

Re: free licensing of TEI Guidelines

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-02-24 19:35:17 + Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:



On Feb 11, 2004, at 18:27, MJ Ray wrote:
Is required deletion significantly better than required invariant 
retention? I'm not sure.

Quite. I may be able to delete it and be left with a free work.


OK, and the parent work is non-free. Seems pointless pain to cause 
people.

Cthugha Free ?

[Martin Albert]

After 3 years of struggling a giant step could lastly be made - the 
relicensing of cthugha is perfect.

Harald has made a last release, cthugha1.4a, 
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6386/, and handed the source 
over to my hands. I'm very pleased, as i hope this eases my efforts to 
keep it in a good shape and develop it further. I planned a complete 
rewrite to make it free, but the changed situation allows incremental 
updates, the critical sources mentioned below being first. Now,

 - Is the license (Appendix1) ok? I can find no problem, but it's all 
become so complicated ...

 - There is a header file (Appendix2 - soon to be replaced). I find no 
problem with it. Is it ok for now?

 - There are some util sources (App.3 and App4). Hm, no copyright at 
all. What about them?

 - Last and least, getopt-long. I don't think it's being used much and 
might go away. But it 'mentions' ;) GPL. Do you think they're ok?

I'm very happy, that i can ask that questions after all. Looking forward 
for your critic, martin

Appendix 1: cthugha-L-1.4a/COPYING

Copyright Information:
--
(based on the BSD License)

 Some parts of the source are from the public domain and are not
 copyrighted.

 Some parts of the source bear explicit copyright notices from the
 author and are subject to the conditions listed there by the author.

 The remainder of the source (not already public domain, no explicit
 author's copyright notice) is Copyright 1995-97 by Harald Deischinger.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are 
met:

 * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright 
notice, 
   this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
   
 * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright 
   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the 
   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

 * The name "Harald Deischinger" may not be used to endorse or 
   promote products derived from this software without specific 
   prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT 
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR 
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT 
OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, 
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED 
TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR 
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF 
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING 
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS 
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.


/*/
/**   Copyright 1991 by Andreas Stolcke **/
/**   Copyright 1990 by Solbourne Computer Inc. **/
/**  Longmont, Colorado **/
/** **/
/**   All Rights Reserved   **/
/** **/
/**Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and**/
/**its documentation  for  any  purpose  and  without  fee is hereby**/
/**granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear  in  all**/
/**copies and that both  that  copyright  notice  and  this  permis-**/
/**sion  notice appear in supporting  documentation,  and  that  the**/
/**name of Solbourne not be used in advertising **/
/**in publicity pertaining to distribution of the  software  without**/
/**specific, written prior permission.  **/
/** **/
/**ANDREAS STOLCKE AND SOLBOURNE COMPUTER INC. DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES **/
/**WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF**/
/**MERCHANTABILITY  AND  FITNESS,  IN  NO  EVENT SHALL ANDREAS STOLCKE  **/
/**OR SOLBOURNE BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL**/
/**DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA   **/
/**OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER**/
/**TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN  CONNECTION  WITH  THE  USE**/
/**OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. **/
/*/
/* 
 * vroot.h -- Virtual Root Window 

Re: Cthugha Free ?

[Martin Albert]

On Wednesday 25 February 2004 11:56, Martin Albert wrote:
>  - There are some util sources (App.3 and App4). Hm, no copyright at
> all. What about them?

s/copyright/licenses/

martin

Re: Cypherpunks anti-License

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Feb 24, 2004, at 16:02, Hubert Chan wrote:


[1] http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL


Please paste license texts inline.

Here we go:


Cypherpunks anti-License



Intent
The intent of the Cypherpunks anti-License (CPL) is to inform users 
that they are free to use and redistribute the indicated work or any 
derived or modified work in any manner they choose.


OK, that seems to be a very liberal permission grant.


 Works distributed under the CPL are in the Public Domain.


and if the law allows it, that's fine too.


Licensing
The CPL is not a license, it does not require the user to do or not do 
anything; the user does not agree to any terms, because there are no 
terms, and the user does not need to do anything to indicate 
acceptance or rejection of the CPL.


OK.


Non Litigation
The CPL serves to pledge to the user that the distributors will behave 
in a manner consistent with the non-existance of Intellectual Property 
(IP) laws as far as they are able. The distributors will not use or 
participate as far as they are able to government legal systems to 
attempt to enforce requests restricting the use, modifications, or 
redistribution of the work for perpetuity. The distributor may prefer 
to be anonymous to preclude attempts to coerce them into enforcing IP 
laws relating to this work against their will.


AFAICT, this is a promise from cypherspace.org not to litigate about 
this code. It is not a license term at all (as there are no license 
terms, see above).


If Debian wishes to make this promise, then it is free to do so as 
well; I'm not sure if we do. However, if we don't, then just delete 
this paragraph.



Requests
The work may be distributed with some distributor requests in addition 
to the CPL. The distributor pledges similarly to not attempt to use IP 
laws to enforce these requests.


I'm not quite sure what "distributor requests" are, but this appears to 
be another promise. See above.



Redistribution
Users choosing to redistribute this work may change anything about the 
work, including distributing it under a different license, and adding 
or removing previous distributors requests.


This is another permission grant, and is actually rather silly. If it's 
in the public domain, it can have no license. Ever.



Interpretation
The CPL is completely liberal. Here are some examples of implications 
of this which are not true for many licenses. The user can 
redistribute the work or a derived or modified work


* under a different license of their choosing


A derived work, yes; the work, not really. As in he could claim to, but 
he could not enforce it.



* with or without source code as they choose


yep.


* without acknowledging the distributors or authors


yep.


* with false or innaccurate claims about authorship of the work


I doubt it.


* advertise without acknowledging the authors


yep.



Requests can be arbitrary, but are requests only. Example of requests 
that the distributor may choose to make:


Ah, so that's what "distributor requests" are.



* that improvements to the work be drawn to the distributors 
attention


Would not be free if it were a requirement, but it's only a request.

* that improvements to the work be released back to the 
distributor under the CPL


That one would be free, I think, because one could always license to 
"all third parties" which is free. But, again, it's only a request.


* that the distributors name not be used to advertise derived 
works without the distributors approval


Actually, that one is quite mandatory.



Legacy Considerations
The distributor may choose to inform the user of his opinion of the IP 
status of the work, for example by identifying any IP law restricted 
aspects such as the copyright holders of parts or the whole of the 
work, trademark owners of trademarks used in the work, potentially 
applicable patents on algorithms or ideas contained in the work, but 
the distributor is not obliged to do so and takes no responsibility 
for the accuracy of such information.


We normally call that "no warranty of merchantability", but ok.

The rest seems similar in function to the GPL's preamble:


Background
The CPL is written from a mindset which derides the very concept of 
Intellectual Property restrictions as being incompatible with a free 
society.


Cryptographically assured anonymity and anonymous use of Internet 
resources mean that denizens of cypherspace can ignore copyright, 
licenses attempting to control use and distribution of works, and 
patents on ideas. It is not possible to enforce IP laws by calls to 
government legal systems when the flaunter is strongly anonymous.


The enforcement of IP law and anonymity are in direct conflict. To 
fully enforce IP laws, anonymity would have to be outlawed. 
Cypherpunks believe this would be a bad thing, because control of 
information imparts power, and anonymity gives individuals control 
over disclosure of information about t

Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License

[Simon Law]

Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License

The original license is available at http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html
and is reproduced below:

---

Copyright © 2003, 2004 X-Oz Technologies. All Rights Reserved.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without
restriction, including without limitation the rights to use,
copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following
conditions:

   1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
  notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer.
   2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
  copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
  disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
  provided with the distribution.
   3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if
  any, must include the following acknowledgment:

"This product includes software developed by X-Oz Technologies
 (http://www.x-oz.com/)."

  Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself,
  if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
   4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz Technologies
  shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale,
  use or other dealings in this Software without prior written
  authorization from X-Oz Technologies.

   THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
   OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
   IN NO EVENT SHALL X-OZ TECHNOLOGIES OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
   ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
   DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
   OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
   HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,
   STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING
   IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
   POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

---

Clause 3 is a complex statement, which appears to be derived from the
obsolete four-clause BSD license.  Although it appears that this clause
can be satisfied by including the license text as end-user
documentation, the author has refused to make this point explicit in the
license.  Alternatively, it has an additional option for providing this
statement within the software itself, which looks like it could be used
to avoid this additional requirement on the documentation.  Since it is
difficult to ascertain the author's intent, we are not sure whether it
violates DFSG 9 by contaminating the documentation with which it is
distributed.

Clause 4, however, is more worrisome.  When compared to the
normal three-clause BSD license, we see that the X-Oz license is worded
very strongly.  It not only forbids promotion and endorsement, it also
forbids the fair-use of the name "X-Oz Technologies", e.g. in a magazine
review of the Software, without prior written permission.

We believe that this licence is not DFSG-free. and we want X-Oz
Technologies to address the problems presented.  We recommend avoiding
this licence at present.

Debian Legal summary of the Petris license (Proposed)

[Simon Law]

Debian Legal summary of the Petris license
Proposed

The original license is available at
http://home1.stofanet.dk/peter-seidler/petris-0.7.tar.gz and is
reproduced below.



You can do whatever you want with the program, it's Public Domain.
(however, it would be nice of you to credit me if you found anything
of this useful).



We believe that this software is DFSG-free.

However, there may be jurisdictions which do not honour an
author's request to divest copyright.  Therefore, we recommend that the
author provide the option to license under the MIT/X11 license [1], if
desired.

[1] http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html

Re: Bug#234477: ITP: logsurfer+ -- real-time system log monitor

[Rob Weir]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 12:07:28AM -0500, Sean Finney said
> hi -devel,

cc'ing to -legal, m-f-t set appropriately.

> i have a question about the licensing:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 09:46:52PM -0500, Sean Finney wrote:
> > * License : (GPL + Required Copyright Disclaimer)
> 
> the original source code was distributed with the following disclaimer:
> 
> /
> * Copyright 1995-1999 by DFN-CERT.  All rights reserved.
> *
> * This material was originally written and compiled by Wolfgang Ley and
> * Uwe Ellermann at the DFN-CERT, Germany, in 1995-96
> *
> * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
> * provided that this entire copyright notice is duplicated in all such
> * copies.

This doesn't provide permission to distribute modified versions, and so
doesn't comply with the DFSG.

> however, it's also built against the gnu regexp library, which is GPL'd.
> am i right in assuming that the software is then implicitly under
> the GPL?  

No, the above license is also incompatible with the GPL (since you don't
have the right to distribute modified versions), which means you can't
distribute it at all (even in non-free).

> i've spoken with the upstream, and he has no obligations to
> his modifications being distributed under the same terms, whatever they
> may be.

You'll need to get them to grant permission to distribute modified
copies; re-licensing it under the 3-clause BSD or MIT/X licenses (which
are both DFSG-free and GPL-compatible) would work, and sound like they
do what upstream wants, anyway.

Note this line:

* Copyright 1995-1999 by DFN-CERT.  All rights reserved.

"DFN-CERT" has to re-license the software, Wolfgang Ley and Uwe
Ellermann do not hold the copyright and thus cannot re-license it.

-- 
Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |  Do I look like I want a CC?
Words of the day: emc Belknap NATO India RSA espionage Crypto AG hackers Merlin


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: free licensing of TEI Guidelines

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Feb 24, 2004, at 19:28, Josh Triplett wrote:



Claiming endorsement by TEI without permission is definitely not
allowed, and this restriction is perfectly DFSG-free.  However,
trademarks cannot be applied to functional elements, and a namespace
seems like a functional element, since a program reading the XML/SGML
could check the namespace and fail if it is not a given value.


I'm not too familiar with XML namespaces, but I thought the intent --- 
and it agrees with the definition that has been posted here --- is a 
non-functional one of identifying the origin of the tag. Even if not, 
surely a menu is at least as much a functional element as a namespace 
(if I understand them right at all), but if I title my menu "Microsoft" 
I can expect trouble.


As far as the DFSG, keep on mind
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
where I suggest that his goal is best achieved under the Lanham Act 
(i.e., trademark law). In particular, Sec. 1125(a)1

Reply on your mail

[Abuse - Planet Media Group]

[English version follows Dutch text]

 DIT IS EEN AUTOMATISCH ANTWOORD 

Dank u voor het inlichten van <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> / <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Wij
bevestigen hierbij dat uw mail is ontvangen. Merk op dat het goed mogelijk
is dat u geen persoonlijk antwoord van ons ontvangt, maar alle meldingen
zullen zorgvuldig onderzocht worden, mits ze goed gedocumenteerd zijn. 

Om meldingen goed te kunnen onderzoeken, hebben wij alle beschikbare
informatie nodig. Als u dit niet al gedaan hebt, stuurt u ons dan alsnog
alle informatie toe. Alleen op deze manier is het voor ons mogelijk een zaak
goed te onderzoeken.

In het geval van portscans of hackpogingen, gelieve ons zoveel mogelijk
informatie te sturen, zoals de relevante stukken logfiles van firewall- en
/of scandetectorprogramma's. Probeert u zoveel mogelijk van de volgende
gegevens te sturen:
- De datum waarop de activiteit waarover u melding maakt, heeft
plaatsgevonden.
- Het exacte tijdstip waarop de activiteit waarover u klaagt heeft
plaatsgevonden, tot op de seconde nauwkeurig, inclusief de gebruikte
tijdszone in UTC 
  (In de zomer is de gewone Nederlandse tijd UTC+2 uur, in de winter is dit
UTC+1) van een NTP-gesynchroniseerde klok.
- source IP-adres en source poort.
- destination IP adres en destination poort.
- gebruikte protocol.
- verstuurde of ontvangen data.

In het geval van Usenet-spam of -misbruik, gelieve ons het complete bericht
toe te sturen, inclusief alle headers. Als het bericht een groot non-tekst
(binary) bestand bevat, laat u deze dan liever achterwege. Geeft u in uw
email aan in welke nieuwsgroep(en) u het bericht bezwaarlijk vindt en stuurt
u een link naar het charter (handvest) van die nieuwsgroep(en) waarmee u uw
bezwaar onderbouwt.

In het geval van email-spam of -misbruik, gelieve ons in ieder geval de
complete header te sturen en de inhoud van het bericht (mits relevant).
Zorgt u er ieder geval voor dat alle zogenaamde 'Received' headers aanwezig
en volledig zijn. Dit is belangrijk!

Via  en
 kunt u voor
diverse mailprogramma's aanwijzingen vinden hoe u deze headers kunt
verkrijgen. 

Het IP-adres dat net boven de afzender staat, laat zien via welke provider
het bericht verstuurd is. Begint dit adres met 195.121.xxx.xxx,
213.75.xxx.xxx, 213.10.xxx.xxx, 62.131.xxx.xxx, 80.60.xxx.xxx,
80.61.xxx.xxx, 145.53.xxx.xxx, 81.204.xxx.xxx, 81.205.xxx.xxx,
81.206.xxx.xxx of 81.207.xxx.xxx dan kunt u een melding sturen naar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> / <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Betreft het een ander IP-adres, dan
kunnen wij uw melding helaas niet in behandeling nemen, omdat het IP-adres
niet
tot ons domein behoort. U kunt op de volgende internetpagina's nagaan bij
welke provider of welk netwerk het IP-adres hoort:
http://www.fr1.cyberabuse.org/whois/?page=whois
http://www.ripe.net/perl/whois http://www.arin.net/whois/index.html
http://www.apnic.net/search/index.html

Indien u twijfelt aan de herkomst van een bericht, laat u het dan bij
voorkeur analyseren door een online dienst zoals . Dit
is een uitstekende gratis service die in staat is aan de juiste
contactpersonen te rapporteren.

Wij verzoeken u vriendelijk doch dringend:
- GEEN meerdere berichten over hetzelfde onderwerp te sturen.
- GEEN meerdere klachten in een mail te sturen
- GEEN complete logfiles te sturen. Enkel de logregels uit de logfile sturen
die het betreffende IP-adres bevatten
- GEEN attachements te sturen. De Planet Media Group abusedesk accepteert
geen attachements. 
- GEEN geformatteerde tekst te sturen (Word, Excel, etc.).
- GEEN trace routes, whois lookups of ping resultaten te sturen. Dit omdat
deze niet bijdragen aan het onderzoek en enkel resulteren in het onleesbaar
worden
van uw melding. 


Actuele virussen

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.virusalert.nl/?show=virus&id=623&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://virusalert.nl/?show=virus&id=609&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://virusalert.nl/?show=virus&id=608&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.virusalert.nl/?show=virus&id=574
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.virusalert.nl/?show=virus&id=558
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.virusalert.nl/?show=virus&id=546
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.virusalert.nl/?show=virus&id=547

De laatste antivirusupdates zijn te vinden op: 
http://www.planet.nl/planet/show/id=184983/sc=2661f1


[English version]

 THIS IS AN AUTOMATED REPLY 

Thank you for notifying <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> / <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. We hereby
acknowledge that your email has been received. Please note that you may not
receive a personal response, but that all cases will be carefully
investigated if properly documented. 

To be able to investigate an abuse case, please make sure you send us as
much information as possible. If you have not already done so, please send
us all information you have. O

Re: free licensing of TEI Guidelines

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Feb 25, 2004, at 05:04, Henning Makholm wrote:


And if some bad guy writes a program that attaches special meaning to
elements in the "wrong" namespace, it should certainly be allowed for
good guys to derive a document that describes the behavior of the bad
guy's program.


Yes, but remember I'm suggesting using trademark law if at all 
possible. So if they bad guys do it, sue the bad guys to make them 
stop.

Re: Cthugha Free ?

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Feb 25, 2004, at 05:56, Martin Albert wrote:



 * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice,
   this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

 * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

 * The name "Harald Deischinger" may not be used to endorse or
   promote products derived from this software without specific
   prior written permission.


This is the 3-clause BSD license, and is OK.

vroot.h: Basically BSD, with some minor wording changes. I assume 
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright counts as "supporting documentation"


cmd_gentable.c: No clear notice, but the blanket notice "The remainder 
of the source (not already public domain, no explicit author's 
copyright notice) is Copyright 1995-97 by Harald Deischinger." would 
seem to cover that...


cmd_smoke.c: Contains author, but no copyright statement. The default 
is "all rights reserved", so this is worrying.


getopt.h, getopt_long.c: LGPL, by the FSF. Since this is part of glibc 
nowadays, I doubt it'd be needed on Debian GNU/Linux systems.



So, overall, cmd_smoke.c seems the most worrying, with cmd_gentables.c 
coming in second.

Re: free licensing of TEI Guidelines

[Ken Arromdee]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I'm not too familiar with XML namespaces, but I thought the intent --- 
> and it agrees with the definition that has been posted here --- is a 
> non-functional one of identifying the origin of the tag. Even if not, 
> surely a menu is at least as much a functional element as a namespace 
> (if I understand them right at all), but if I title my menu "Microsoft" 
> I can expect trouble.

A long, long time ago there were IBM PCs which contained a statement in the
BIOS that they were copyrighted by IBM.  Some programs checked for IBM PC
compatibility by looking for the copyright statement.  So competitors' BIOSes
would say things like "This is copyright by ___.  The following is added for
compatibility only: Copyright IBM"  (Unfortunately, Googling up a
reference for this is probably impossible.)

You may have to title your menu Microsoft if you want to be compatible with a
dumb third party program that won't work unless your menu is titled
"Microsoft"...

Re: license for Federal Information Processing Standards

[Mahesh T. Pai]

Giacomo A. Catenazzi said on Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:27:13AM +0100,:

 > >All works of the United States Government (of which FIPS 180-1 is one)
 > >are ineligible for copyright and are explicitly public domain.
 > 
 > There are public domain only in the United States, IIRC

Why do you say so??

AFAIK, copyright  is granted  by countries on  a reciprocal  basis; no
country grants  a copyright for a  `foreign work' when  such work does
not enjoy any protection in its country of origin, nor a period longer
than what  it enjoys in  its originating country.  Correct me if  I am
wrong.

Again, different countries may treat this differently.
 

-- 
+~+
  
  Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M.,   
  'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road,   
  Ernakulam, Cochin-682018,   
  Kerala, India.  
  
  http://paivakil.port5.com 
  
+~+

Re: license for Federal Information Processing Standards

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> Giacomo A. Catenazzi said on Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:27:13AM +0100,:
>  > >All works of the United States Government (of which FIPS 180-1 is one)
>  > >are ineligible for copyright and are explicitly public domain.
>  > 
>  > There are public domain only in the United States, IIRC
> 
> Why do you say so??

Because the Berne Convention appears to state so.

> AFAIK, copyright  is granted  by countries on  a reciprocal  basis; no
> country grants  a copyright for a  `foreign work' when  such work does
> not enjoy any protection in its country of origin, nor a period longer
> than what  it enjoys in  its originating country.  Correct me if  I am
> wrong.

Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention specifically states
"The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights ...
shall be independent of the existence of protection in the 
country of origin of the work."

And under article 5(1) an author, even the US Government,
can claim foreign copyrights for works that qualify as
"literary or artistic" under the Berne Convention.

I couldn't find a basis in the BC for what you are saying above.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/

Re: free licensing of TEI Guidelines

[Andrew Suffield]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 02:51:03PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2004, at 14:44, Syd Bauman wrote:
> 
> >While this would meet the goals articulated above, it appears that
> >Debian has some potentially serious objections to the GFDL[1]. So the
> >question arises, how can we create a copyleft license that is
> >sufficiently free for Debian, but at the same time prevents others
> >from claiming TEI-conformance for texts that are not?
> 
> Stop. You don't want to use copyright law to do this! Copyright law 
> deals with copying, distributing and deriving from works. Nothing you 
> can do with copyright law can stop me from writing my own document and 
> claiming it as TEI conforming.
> 
> Go look up trademark law. That's what you want. If I state that 
> something has the endorsement of the TEI Consortium when it doesn't, I 
> have violated the Lanham(?) Act [sorry, offline, can't check the name]. 
> I forget which title of US code it is, but you'll be able to find it 
> easily --- look for trademarks.

Technically there's also a part of copyright law in most jurisdictions
referred to as "right of attribution" - which says that (a) you are
entitled to have your creations attributed to you, and (b) you are
entitled to not have things attributed to you which you did not
create. But this right cannot normally be waived or transferred, so a
copyright *license* is neither necessary nor useful. You don't
actually *need* to use a trademark for this in most countries.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Cypherpunks anti-License

[Hubert Chan]

Thanks for your analysis, Anthony.

> "Anthony" == Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Anthony> On Feb 24, 2004, at 16:02, Hubert Chan wrote:
>>
Hubert> [1] http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL

Anthony> Please paste license texts inline.

OK.  Will do that in the future.

[...]

CPL> Non Litigation ...

[...]

Anthony> If Debian wishes to make this promise, then it is free to do so
Anthony> as well; I'm not sure if we do. However, if we don't, then just
Anthony> delete this paragraph.

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to make that decision on behalf of
Debian. ;-)

If I wish to delete this paragraph, what is the best way to do this?
Should I say in the copyright file something to the effect of, "the
original hashcash package is released under the CPL, which is available
From ..., but the Debian package is released under a modified CPL"?  Or
"but the Debian package is in the public domain, as allowed by the CPL"?

(I know that the CPL allows me to relicense without any notice.  But I
want to be as un-rude as possible.)

Thanks

(again, please CC me on replies.)

-- 
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.


pgpKVaS6EACSO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#234477: ITP: logsurfer+ -- real-time system log monitor

[sean finney]

hey rob (and -legal),

thanks for following up with me on this.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:08:40AM +1100, Rob Weir wrote:
> > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
> > * provided that this entire copyright notice is duplicated in all such
> > * copies.

i think you and i interpreted this differently.  of course if there is
any ambiguity, i should probably clear that up with them.  to me,
"Redistribution and use in source and binary" seemed to imply
"redistribution in source and binary" and "use in source and binary",
with the "use" of source including modification.  but maybe i'm just
reading into that too liberally.

> > however, it's also built against the gnu regexp library, which is GPL'd.
> > am i right in assuming that the software is then implicitly under
> > the GPL?  
> 
> No, the above license is also incompatible with the GPL (since you don't
> have the right to distribute modified versions), which means you can't
> distribute it at all (even in non-free).

so then technically they can't even redistribute it, because their
program is built including GPL'd code?

> You'll need to get them to grant permission to distribute modified
> copies; re-licensing it under the 3-clause BSD or MIT/X licenses (which
> are both DFSG-free and GPL-compatible) would work, and sound like they
> do what upstream wants, anyway.

if the code includes gpl source code, doesn't that mean the code has to
be GPL'd too?

> * Copyright 1995-1999 by DFN-CERT.  All rights reserved.

i'll try to follow up with DFN-CERT to get a clarification on this
before i do any serious packaging work.


thanks,
sean



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: license for Federal Information Processing Standards

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> And under article 5(1) an author, even the US Government,
> can claim foreign copyrights for works that qualify as
> "literary or artistic" under the Berne Convention.

Has there been actual cases where the US government has claimed
copyright in a non-US court on a work that it couldn't claim at home?

Unless we can reference actual instances of this, it might be hard to
convince US government branches to provide explicit license statements
to their work. They may even believe that it is "illegal" for them to
apply any license at all to their work.

-- 
Henning Makholm"Vi skal nok ikke begynde at undervise hinanden i
den store regnekunst her, men jeg vil foreslå, at vi fra
 Kulturministeriets side sørger for at fremsende tallene og også
  give en beskrivelse af, hvordan man læser tallene. Tak for i dag!"

Re: Bug#234477: ITP: logsurfer+ -- real-time system log monitor

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> > You'll need to get them to grant permission to distribute modified
> > copies; re-licensing it under the 3-clause BSD or MIT/X licenses (which
> > are both DFSG-free and GPL-compatible) would work, and sound like they
> > do what upstream wants, anyway.

> if the code includes gpl source code, doesn't that mean the code has to
> be GPL'd too?

No, it only has to be offered under a license that gives all of the
freedoms that the GPL gives. It is OK to use a more permissive
license, as long as it is GPL compatible.

-- 
Henning Makholm "Jeg forstår mig på at anvende sådanne midler på
   folks legemer, at jeg kan varme eller afkøle dem,
som jeg vil, og få dem til at kaste op, hvis det er det,
  jeg vil, eller give afføring og meget andet af den slags."

Re: Cypherpunks anti-License

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> > Licensing
> > The CPL is not a license, it does not require the user to do or not
> > do anything; the user does not agree to any terms, because there are
> > no terms, and the user does not need to do anything to indicate
> > acceptance or rejection of the CPL.

> OK.

But indicative of confused thinking. The legal core meaning of the
word "license" is that it gives permissions. It is the giving of
permissions that makes a thing a "license", whether or not there are
any strings attached. The author seems to think that it is attached
strings that are meant by the word "license", which is simply wrong.

> AFAICT, this is a promise from cypherspace.org not to litigate about
> this code. It is not a license term at all (as there are no license
> terms, see above).

> If Debian wishes to make this promise, then it is free to do so as
> well; I'm not sure if we do. However, if we don't, then just delete
> this paragraph.

We should not delete paragraphs from upstream license statements.
It might be necessary to state in the copyright file that Debian as a
project does not make the promise. But I think it is not necessary.

First, I cannot imagine any situation where Debian would even
*consider* suing anybody over anything they do to software that we
simply distribute. On the contrary, the whole point of the Social
Contract and the DFSG is to promise users that we try to make certain
that they *won't* get sued.

Second, "Debian" is not a legally competent entitiy; it can neither
make binding promises nor file lawsuits. (That's what we have SPI
for). The legally competent persons distributing the software are
the maintainer, the ftp-masters, and the mirror admins. They may want,
personally, to reserve the theoretical right to sue, but it beyond my
imagination why they would want to, or indeed which right they have in
the first place that could be reserved.

> > The CPL is completely liberal. Here are some examples of
> > implications of this which are not true for many licenses. The user
> > can redistribute the work or a derived or modified work
> >
> > * under a different license of their choosing

> A derived work, yes; the work, not really. As in he could claim to,
> but he could not enforce it.

Probably the license author can conceive of a jurisdiction where a
distributor could claim a copyright-like interest in copies he
distributes, without any creative effort. 

-- 
Henning Makholm"What a hideous colour khaki is."

Re: Cypherpunks anti-License

[Chris Waters]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 08:41:05AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:

> >Licensing
> >The CPL is not a license, it does not require the user to do or not do 
> >anything

They don't seem to know what the word "license" means.  Perhaps we can
all chip in and buy them a dictionary! :)

-- 
Chris Waters   |  Pneumonoultra-osis is too long
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  microscopicsilico-to fit into a single
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  volcaniconi-  standalone haiku

Re: Cypherpunks anti-License

[Nic Suzor]

* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> First, I cannot imagine any situation where Debian would even
> *consider* suing anybody over anything they do to software that we
> simply distribute. On the contrary, the whole point of the Social
> Contract and the DFSG is to promise users that we try to make certain
> that they *won't* get sued.
> 
> Second, "Debian" is not a legally competent entitiy; it can neither
> make binding promises nor file lawsuits. (That's what we have SPI
> for). The legally competent persons distributing the software are
> the maintainer, the ftp-masters, and the mirror admins. They may want,
> personally, to reserve the theoretical right to sue, but it beyond my
> imagination why they would want to, or indeed which right they have in
> the first place that could be reserved.

Waiver of the right to sue for copyright is a non-issue; the work is
stated to be in the public domain, so there are no exclusive rights that
can be sued upon. 

However, the licence states that the distributor will not sue or
help to sue for any reason, where the result would be that the use,
modification or redistribution of the work would be restricted. Perhaps 
this is limited by the line above, 'in a manner consistent with the 
non-existance of Intellectual Property (IP) laws'. Either way, it means
at least that you are possibly waiving rights to sue for trademark 
infringement, or passing off, etc. It's not hard to envisage a situation 
where Debian (or the direct distributors) need to enforce their 
trademarks, or commence a passing off action, and possibly prevent the
distribution of the work (or derivatives - 'the work for perpetuity').

Even though Debian's IP is vested in SPI, a distribution by the
ftp-masters etc. under such terms  may prejudice a potential action by
SPI. 

I think it's pretty bold to give a forbearance to sue on those terms;
releasing the work completely in the public domain, without the extra
warranties, would achieve the same purpose, because there are no
exclusive rights to sue under. The remainder of the 'licence' seems to be
mainly explanation / ettiquette provisions anyway. It would probably be
polite to keep these sections, but not in the form of a copyright
licence.


Regards,

Nic Suzor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Cypherpunks anti-License

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Nic Suzor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> However, the licence states that the distributor will not sue or
> help to sue for any reason, where the result would be that the use,
> modification or redistribution of the work would be restricted.

Yes, but it *also* states that a distributor can chose whatever
license he wishes for his distribution.

I think we should treat the "anti-license" as a statement of the terms
on which the Debian maintainer acquired the code. As such, they should
be reproduced in extenso in the copyright file.

The maintainer may wish to explain in the copyright file that Debian
does not consider itself bound by the upstream author's claims about
what "distributors" will or won't do. Personally I still don't think
it is necessary, but it wouldn't hurt either.

> It's not hard to envisage a situation where Debian (or the direct
> distributors) need to enforce their trademarks, or commence a
> passing off action,

In that case our grievance would be unrelated to the fact that the
defendant got the software through Debian, and therefore the license
terms (or lack of same) of our redistribution would be immaterial to
the case.

It would be really hard for the defendant to argue that text which we
reproduce verbatim as evidence of the original author's intent should
be taken as a binding promise from *us*, applicable even in situations
that have nothing to do with our distributing the software, simply
because we have reproduced the text.

-- 
Henning Makholm "Occam was a medieval old fart. The simplest
 explanation that fits the facts is always, God did it."

Re: Bug#234477: ITP: logsurfer+ -- real-time system log monitor

[Rob Weir]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 05:09:12PM -0500, sean finney said
> hey rob (and -legal),
> 
> thanks for following up with me on this.
> 
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:08:40AM +1100, Rob Weir wrote:
> > > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
> > > * provided that this entire copyright notice is duplicated in all such
> > > * copies.
> 
> i think you and i interpreted this differently.  of course if there is
> any ambiguity, i should probably clear that up with them.  to me,
> "Redistribution and use in source and binary" seemed to imply
> "redistribution in source and binary" and "use in source and binary",
> with the "use" of source including modification.  but maybe i'm just
> reading into that too liberally.

Unfortunately, if a permission isn't granted explicitly, you don't have
it, no matter what the author intended.  Of course, if the author
intended what you said, he/she/it is unlikely to sue...but you need to
get the magic "modification" word in there.

> > > however, it's also built against the gnu regexp library, which is GPL'd.
> > > am i right in assuming that the software is then implicitly under
> > > the GPL?  
> > 
> > No, the above license is also incompatible with the GPL (since you don't
> > have the right to distribute modified versions), which means you can't
> > distribute it at all (even in non-free).
> 
> so then technically they can't even redistribute it, because their
> program is built including GPL'd code?

Depends what "including" means.  If the actual source is a combination
of code under this license and the GPL, it's not distributable at all.
If it links against a GPL library at run time, then it's probably just
the binaries that are undistributable.

> > You'll need to get them to grant permission to distribute modified
> > copies; re-licensing it under the 3-clause BSD or MIT/X licenses (which
> > are both DFSG-free and GPL-compatible) would work, and sound like they
> > do what upstream wants, anyway.
> 
> if the code includes gpl source code, doesn't that mean the code has to
> be GPL'd too?

As Henning said, it just needs to be under a license at least as Free
(ie can't have any more restrictions than the GPL itself, but it can
certainly have *less*) as the GPL; such licenses are called
"GPL-compatible".  The MIT/X and BSD licenses are good examples of
GPL-compatible "do whatever you want but don't say you wrote it"
licenses.

> > * Copyright 1995-1999 by DFN-CERT.  All rights reserved.
> 
> i'll try to follow up with DFN-CERT to get a clarification on this
> before i do any serious packaging work.

Excellent.

-- 
Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |  Do I look like I want a CC?
Words of the day: arrangements clandestine ICE world domination FIPS140


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

ASL2 vs. GPL?

[Chris Waters]

With the Apache Foundation publicly disagreeing with the FSF over
whether the new Apache Source License 2.0 is compatible with the GPL,
I think it might be wise for us to look into the matter and form our
own opinions, so that (e.g.) if someone submits code that mixes the
two licenses, we'll know how to respond.

The AF rebuttal to the FSF is found here:

  http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility

My initial impression is that their analysis is flawed.  In
particular, where they point to section 3 of their own license, and
section 7 of the GPL, they say, "In other words, the GPL says that you
cannot redistribute software that is covered by a patent wherein the
patent is not licensed free for everyone."  I don't think that's a
correct rephrasing of section 7.

The portion of section 7 they highlight says, "if a patent license
would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all
those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the
only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."  However, this is
just an example, and is clearly marked as such.

My back-of-the-cocktail-napkinrebuttal to the AF's rebuttal is simple:
the GPL requires that patent licenses be compatible with the GPL.  It
does not require that patent licenses be compatible with any other
licenses (free or not).  The ASL2 requires that patent licenses be
compatible with other licenses (specifically, the ASL2).  Therefore,
the ASL2 has requirements beyond those found in the GPL.  Therefore,
the ASL2 is not compatible with the GPL.

-- 
Chris Waters   |  Pneumonoultra-osis is too long
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  microscopicsilico-to fit into a single
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  volcaniconi-  standalone haiku

Re: Cypherpunks anti-License

[Nic Suzor]

(excuse the duplication - I forgot to reply to the list.)

* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Scripsit Nic Suzor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > However, the licence states that the distributor will not sue or
> > help to sue for any reason, where the result would be that the use,
> > modification or redistribution of the work would be restricted.
> 
> Yes, but it *also* states that a distributor can chose whatever
> license he wishes for his distribution.
> 
> I think we should treat the "anti-license" as a statement of the terms
> on which the Debian maintainer acquired the code. As such, they should
> be reproduced in extenso in the copyright file.

I agree. I just feel that it needs to be clear that the package is not
distributed on the same terms, and that Debian is not providing the same
warranties against litigation. I don't think that we need an express
explanation to that effect, but simply delimit the CPL from a statement
that the package is in the public domain in the copyright file. 

> It would be really hard for the defendant to argue that text which we
> reproduce verbatim as evidence of the original author's intent should
> be taken as a binding promise from *us*, applicable even in situations
> that have nothing to do with our distributing the software, simply
> because we have reproduced the text.

Again, I agree - I was proceeding on the assumption that the package
would be distributed under the CPL (only), and not that it would simply
be included in the copyright notice.


Regards,


Nic Suzor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ASL2 vs. GPL?

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Chris Waters wrote:
> With the Apache Foundation publicly disagreeing with the FSF over
> whether the new Apache Source License 2.0 is compatible with the
> GPL, I think it might be wise for us to look into the matter and
> form our own opinions, so that (e.g.) if someone submits code that
> mixes the two licenses, we'll know how to respond.
> 
> The AF rebuttal to the FSF is found here:
> 
>   http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility
> 
> My initial impression is that their analysis is flawed.

It's most definetly flawed. I pointed the issues out to Fielding and
suggested that the AF refrain from declaring the license GPL
compatibile without at least discussing it with Eben Moglen a month
ago, especially since the AF doesn't have any where near as much
experience with the license as Eben and the FSF does. I just hope no
one really believes their claims of compatibility.

In a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I outline at least my reasoning
of why it isn't GPL compatible, and furthermore, why it means nothing
for the AF to declare the ASL v2 GPL compatible:

From my reading, the language of ASL§3 when combined with GPL§7
could disallow a class of distribution normally allowed for a
GPLed work alone.

 If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your
 obligations under this License and any other pertinent
 obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the
 Program at all. [...] if a patent license would not permit
 royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who
 receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the
 only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be
 to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.[GPL §7]

 If You institute patent litigation against any entity
 (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit)
 alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within
 the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent
 infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under
 this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date
 such litigation is filed. [ASL §3]

The conflict primarily revolves around the ability of the
distributor to distribute an ASL+GPLed work after the distributor
has lost a patent license due to reciprocity. Since the GPL itself
does not contain such a restriction, you cannot turn around and
license the resultant work under the GPL alone as required by GPL
§2c, etc.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Whether or not they are considered compatible by the FSF is an
> opinion only they can make, but given that a derivative work
> consisting of both Apache Licensed code and GPL code can be
> distributed under the GPL (according to *our* opinion), there
> really isn't anything to be discussed.

Unfortunately, Apache's opinion isn't enough, unless the ASL is
only going to be applied to works (and combined works) wholly
owned by ASF. The opinion of the copyright holder of the GPLed
work being combined with an ASLed work is also at issue here. As
the FSF is the copyright holder on quite a large number of GPLed
works, as well as the principle enforcer of the GPL, their opinion
was sought as a reference point.


That at least, is my reading of the current situation. Feel free, of
course, to poke holes in my reasoning and point out additional issues.


Don Armstrong

1:http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=141
-- 
Unix, MS-DOS, and Windows NT (also known as the Good, the Bad, and
the Ugly).
 -- Matt Welsh

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Cypherpunks anti-License

[Hubert Chan]

Thanks to everyone who has provided input so far.  It has been very
helpful.

> "Nic" == Nic Suzor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

[...]

Nic> I agree. I just feel that it needs to be clear that the package is
Nic> not distributed on the same terms, and that Debian is not providing
Nic> the same warranties against litigation. I don't think that we need
Nic> an express explanation to that effect, but simply delimit the CPL
Nic> from a statement that the package is in the public domain in the
Nic> copyright file.

OK, so what does everyone think of the following statement in the
copyright file?

[This program] is in the public domain.  The original upstream source is
released under the Cypherpunks anti-License (CPL), which places the
program in the public domain, and includes additional clarifying text.
Neither Debian, nor Software in the Public Interest, nor any of their
agents specifically make the same pledges as are contained in the
license.  The complete text of the license follows below:

[etc.]

Is that too wordy? or unnecessary?  Suggestions?

-- 
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.


pgpLAmhYi7Kkb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Cypherpunks anti-License

[Nic Suzor]

* Hubert Chan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> [This program] is in the public domain.  The original upstream source is
> released under the Cypherpunks anti-License (CPL), which places the
> program in the public domain, and includes additional clarifying text.
> Neither Debian, nor Software in the Public Interest, nor any of their
> agents specifically make the same pledges as are contained in the
> license.  The complete text of the license follows below:

Looks good to me. Maybe you should be a touch more specific about which
licence you are referring too (even though the package you are
distributing won't have a licence of its own). I would suggest changing
the wording from 'the license' to 'that license' ('the complete text of
that license'.

On the other hand, I could just be picky - the statement is reasonably
clear.


Regards,

Nic Suzor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]