Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On 2004-03-02 02:05:54 + Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 12:01:44AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Sadly, this clause also seems to define attribution within the prohibited acts. I think so much of this depends upon what X-Oz's intereptation of this license means that I'm not going to continue to debate this but rather seek an explanation from them. I've emailed them privately asking for clarification on Clause 4. I have not asked about Clause 3 since it is clearly directly copied from the Apache 1.1 license. OK, good luck with that and let us know how you get on. Ideally, they clarify the licence by rewording it. If they publish a clarification contradicting the apparant meaning and we accept that (can we?), I think we have to ask the same of all other users of the clause, including the XFree86 project, which sucks IMO. First you write that claiming DFSG compliance is ridiculous, and now you say it's perfectly acceptable?!? Nope, I've always meant that it was perfectly acceptable. You just misunderstood me. It's easy to misunderstand denying it as DFSG compliant is ridiculous. -- 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/
subscribe
subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. — Naguib Mahfouz
Re: Debian the Mozilla Firefox Trademarks
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 08:02:58PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: On that theme, I think it's worth distinguishing between trademark and copyright licenses -- the icon is distributable if its copyright license is OK, but the trademark license is needed to make the graphic the default icon, and to name a package Firefox, presumably. We already do, more or less. As a general rule (in the sense that I'm not aware of anybody constructing a trademark license that was actually a problem), we are unconcerned about trademark licenses as far as DFSG-freeness is concerned, and don't worry about them unless they cause actual problems with maintaining the packages (which is the primary issue with Firefox). This is justified on the basis that trademarks are so weak - you can always just modify the trademarked work until the trademark does not apply, and carry on. Alternatively, you can compare trademark licenses to restrictions of the form You can modify this, but you must call it something different if you do, which are usually DFSG-free. That said, DFSG-freeness is not the only test. We need to be able to distribute the thing (and make security updates), and the Firefox trademarks are a problem here. There is an interesting GPL compatability issue here, though: this trademark license is not GPL compatible, and the marks Firefox and the Firefox fox-and-globe logo are used within the work. I know upstream, Mozilla is available under a trio of licenses. Is Firefox actually distributable under the GPL at all? I think so, but I'm not so sure about modified versions of Firefox. Clause 7 is the relevant one here. You can always construct something that is distributable under the GPL by modifying it to change the name and artwork, though. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
X-Oz Technologies
Hi, Sorry for the noise but I was unsure if I needed to subscribe or not. Someone kindly let me know that my post got through so I think it's better I just reply as needed. If you think that this is burdensome I will subscribe if that is preferred. I am responding to this list, since a concerned free software enthusiast has told me that several concerns about our license have been raised here. I really did not know of this as I, nor any other X-Ozzie, had been contacted previous to that first contact about any of these concerns. If someone would like us to comment on the X-Oz license issues, I will gladly do so. Please let me know what the pertinent issues are, as you see it, and hopefully I will be able to allay your concerns. Thank you again for your concern and interest. Best Regards Sue The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible. — Arthur C. Clark
Re: license for Federal Information Processing Standards
On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 16:12 -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. Below are the contents of a conversation that took place between me and Elizabeth Lennon, the employee at the National Institute of Standards and Technology that the FIPS page suggested to contact. I have added her to the list of CCs of this email in hopes that she will be able to offer her insight into any further questions that may arise. Ms. Lennon: I hope that this is not a problem for you. Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 11:15:27 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Elizabeth Lennon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Copyright of Federal Information Processing Standards Publications Alexander, you are correct that documents, including FIPS, issued by the U.S. Government are in the public domain and not subject to copyright. There are no restrictions to the distribution of this document, since is has been publicly available worldwide on our website for some years. Liz At 11:02 AM 3/2/2004 -0500, you wrote: Dear Ms. Lennon: I am partially and unofficially affiliated with a project known as Debian. (You may access our Web site at http://www.debian.org/.) As noted on our Web site, we provide a free operating system for people all over the globe. All software that is included in the Debian GNU/Linux distribution must comply with a set of guidelines, known as the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which are available at http://www.debian.org/ social_contract#guidelines. We wish to include a copy of the FIPS 180-1 document in our distribution for the benefit of our users and developers. However, if FIPS 180-1 is subject to copyright and/or licensing restrictions, than we will most likely be unable to include it. As we are aware, items released by the United States government fall into the public domain, i. e., all of their copyright is relinquished. What we do not know is if this FIPS document is in the public domain and what repercussions the possible inclusion of this document in our distribution, which may be exported outside of the United States, may create. What I ask of you and your colleagues is intellectual property information relating to FIPS 180-1 and, if at all possible, other FIPS documents as well. Thank you very much. Yours truly, Alexander Winston PS. Please note that I may redirect our correspondence verbatim to a public mailing list to which Debian developers and users have access. If you or anyone that wishes to reply to this email objects to this practice, please state so in any replies. I will be sure to respect these wishes. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[no subject]
Hey there, how are you. I was seraching the web when I came across you guys. I have a question if it isn't to much trouble. I am starting a t-shirt company. An original design t-shirt company(with name) which I am about to start selling. Do I need to copywrite/license the name of my shirt company/product. I registered it with the resister of deeds in my state of NC. But I don't know about licensing. Please let me know if this is something I need to do. I just want to protect myself from someone saying in the future that they thought of my company name first, or that they sell this name to, etc. Thank for for your time. ERIC
Shirts
Hey there, how are you. I was seraching the web when I came across you guys. I have a question if it isn't to much trouble. I am starting a t-shirt company. An original design t-shirt company(with name) which I am about to start selling. Do I need to copywrite/license the name of my shirt company/product. I registered it with the resister of deeds in my state of NC. But I don't know about licensing. Please let me know if this is something I need to do. I just want to protect myself from someone saying in the future that they thought of my company name first, or that they sell this name to, etc. Thank for for your time. ERIC
T-Shirts IP
On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 11:36 -0500, Rudeweargear.com wrote: Hey there, how are you. I was seraching the web when I came across you guys. I have a question if it isn't to much trouble. I am starting a t-shirt company. An original design t-shirt company(with name) which I am about to start selling. Do I need to copywrite/ license the name of my shirt company/product. I registered it with the resister of deeds in my state of NC. But I don't know about licensing. Please let me know if this is something I need to do. I just want to protect myself from someone saying in the future that they thought of my company name first, or that they sell this name to, etc. Thank for for your time. ERIC This mailing list is solely for the discussion of legal matters surrounding free software and Debian. If you need real legal advice for your company, hire an attorney learned in intellectual property. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: X-Oz Technologies
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 11:04:35AM -0500, selussos wrote: I am responding to this list, since a concerned free software enthusiast has told me that several concerns about our license have been raised here. I really did not know of this as I, nor any other X-Ozzie, had been contacted previous to that first contact about any of these concerns. If someone would like us to comment on the X-Oz license issues, I will gladly do so. Please let me know what the pertinent issues are, as you see it, and hopefully I will be able to allay your concerns. If you could comment on the issues raised in this email it would be most helpful: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200402/msg00162.html Thanks. -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking. - H.L. Mencken
Re: license for Federal Information Processing Standards
The latest version is FIPS 180-2, and is available for download free of charge at http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/index.html. All FIPS are free of charge. Liz At 12:21 PM 3/2/2004 -0500, Alexander Winston wrote: On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 16:12 -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. Below are the contents of a conversation that took place between me and Elizabeth Lennon, the employee at the National Institute of Standards and Technology that the FIPS page suggested to contact. I have added her to the list of CCs of this email in hopes that she will be able to offer her insight into any further questions that may arise. Ms. Lennon: I hope that this is not a problem for you. Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 11:15:27 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Elizabeth Lennon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Copyright of Federal Information Processing Standards Publications Alexander, you are correct that documents, including FIPS, issued by the U.S. Government are in the public domain and not subject to copyright. There are no restrictions to the distribution of this document, since is has been publicly available worldwide on our website for some years. Liz At 11:02 AM 3/2/2004 -0500, you wrote: Dear Ms. Lennon: I am partially and unofficially affiliated with a project known as Debian. (You may access our Web site at http://www.debian.org/.) As noted on our Web site, we provide a free operating system for people all over the globe. All software that is included in the Debian GNU/Linux distribution must comply with a set of guidelines, known as the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which are available at http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines. We wish to include a copy of the FIPS 180-1 document in our distribution for the benefit of our users and developers. However, if FIPS 180-1 is subject to copyright and/or licensing restrictions, than we will most likely be unable to include it. As we are aware, items released by the United States government fall into the public domain, i. e., all of their copyright is relinquished. What we do not know is if this FIPS document is in the public domain and what repercussions the possible inclusion of this document in our distribution, which may be exported outside of the United States, may create. What I ask of you and your colleagues is intellectual property information relating to FIPS 180-1 and, if at all possible, other FIPS documents as well. Thank you very much. Yours truly, Alexander Winston PS. Please note that I may redirect our correspondence verbatim to a public mailing list to which Debian developers and users have access. If you or anyone that wishes to reply to this email objects to this practice, please state so in any replies. I will be sure to respect these wishes.
Summary: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?, was Re: GPL+ for docs
Oleksandr Moskalenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My understanding of how this discussion developed is that a GPL license + a clause about allowing small non-commercial _paper_ printing runs to not have to provide sources, applied to software documentation would be DFSG-free and is generally recommended for documentation in Debian. Yup. The idea is that the source requirement on the GPL means you must distribute an electronic version alongside otherwise. On the other had OPLv1.0 cannot be made DFSG-free and should not be bothered with, unless the goal of the upstream _is_ to stay non-free (i.e. restricting commercial _paper_ printing to require their written permission) until they publish a book as it is in this case. So, they should be left alone until they are ready for GPL. Well, if they're not prepared to publish a paper version yet, they could probably simply go with the GPL, since that would limit paper versions to requiring source (e.g., on a CD in the book). I imagine most commercial publishers would balk at that (and if they don't, you get their cover art and editorial changes). Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more to say on the subject: --- Debian-legal summary --- The OPL (Open Publication License) is not DFSG free: - It requires the original publisher and author to appear on all outer surfaces of a book, and defines how they should appear. This is a significant restriction on modification. - The person who makes any modifications must be identified, which violates the dissident test. As a copyleft license for documents debian-legal suggests the GPL with explanatory text (i.e., not part of the license) explaining that the author believes the preferred form for making modifications (i.e., source) to be an electronic version in the original format. (Note that this is not legal advice, for that you should seek a lawyer.) If the goal is a compromise between allowing paper-only versions and copyleft, debian-legal suggests using the GPL with an additional exception to the source distribution requirement for small-scale or non-commercial distribution. As always, it's best if the exception can be dropped at the choice of the recipient, so as to maintain GPL compatibility. --- End debian-legal summary --- (Not cc'ing, since you're evidently on the list.) -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Shirts
On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 11:40 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey there, how are you. I was seraching the web when I came across you guys. I have a question if it isn't to much trouble. I am starting a t-shirt company. An original design t-shirt company(with name) which I am about to start selling. Do I need to copywrite/ license the name of my shirt company/product. I registered it with the resister of deeds in my state of NC. But I don't know about licensing. Please let me know if this is something I need to do. I just want to protect myself from someone saying in the future that they thought of my company name first, or that they sell this name to, etc. Thank for for your time. ERIC As I said before, this mailing list is solely for the discussion of legal matters surrounding free software and Debian. If you need real legal advice for your company, hire an attorney learned in intellectual property. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 02:28:37PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote: 1) Do you need the right to use the name of the copyright holder in order to make free use of the software? Copyright doesn't cover usage, it covers copying. 2) Do you need the right to use the name of the software in order to make free use of the software? Copyright doesn't cover usage, it covers copying. My answer to those questions are: 1) Not outside of attribution of the copyright. A copyright license, or an attempt thereat, must not forbid the communication of factual information, or usage of the name of the copyright holder is any way that is consistent with the principles of free expression. This not only includes factual statements, but parody, satire, editorializing. It does not include libel or false claims of endorsement. Any attempt by a copyright license to prohibit protected expression is probably unenforceable (and unconstitutional if prosecuted as criminal copyright infringement by the U.S. government). Since the Debian Project does not have the resources to pursue court battles, we tend to regard all clauses of a copyright license as enforceable, especially since not all countries have equally liberal laws regarding free expression, and Debian produces an OS with a worldwide audience. 2) Yes, unless the software has been modified. I think any attempt to use copyright licenses to enforce common-law trademark rights should be regarded with suspicioun, since common-law trademark right vest regardless of any copyright license. These constant attempts to piggyback non-copyright-related means of revoking a copyright license are misguided at best and malevolent at worst. What's wrong with a copyright holder including a clause in his Open Source license that terminates a licensee's rights to the software if the licensee should ever be involved in an automobile accident with the copyright holder? Furthermore, it is not acceptable for a copyright license to place restrictions on software interfaces. E.g., a Debian package should be able to be named apache, or declare that it Provides: apache, to satisfy the requirements of other packages that require an Apache-compatible HTTP server. If you say yes to both of these questions without qualification then any other license without permission to use the names would not be free. If you use language like without qualification, we're probably not going to have a very enlightening discussion. The cornerstone of my argument in my opinion is that most other licenses do not provide such a permission. Most licenses don't need to provide permission. All they need to do is not step beyond what copyright law allows. I don't think you have the rights these licenses take away from you even if the clause was omitted. Then why saddle the license with irrelevancies? Nope I didn't. But because the name Apache is commonly used to refer to the software I think that qualification is necessary. If ASF was to separate out the language for these two terms I think they could be equally restrictive on the Apache Software Foundation mark as the XFree86 1.1 and X-Oz licenses are. ...and that may not be wise, or friendly. That is only true in one case and even then, its full name is Apache HTTP Server. Yes but nobody commonly refers to it as this. Does that mean nobody commonly violates the corresponding clause of the license? Or that everyone frequently does? So what does the clause really prevent you from doing? Using those two marks without permission. Neither of which you have a particularly good reason to need to use anyway. They aren't the name of the software. Does the clause prevent you from describing the origin of the software, even unmodified, apart from the software itself? No. Provided you aren't using the name for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or other dealings in this software. What are other dealings? Simply acknowledging the source of the software doesn't seem to violate the clause. Unless you are trying to use good will attached to the names of the copyright owner to gain good will for the product. That's already prohibited by law. Nothing to do with copyright law. Frankly, I think this clause is trying to define an endorsement. It probably would be better off using the BSD language. But I don't think there is anything non-free about the language. Language matters more than intent for any license that is used by anyone other than the person who wrote it. Nope, nor do I think I did. Requiring acknowledgement seems perfectly acceptable under the DFSG in my opinion. Please ground your opinion on the language of the DFSG, then. Clause 4 is about asking you not to use their name without permission. It's compelling, not asking. I doubt any would be upset about a request. You're already compelled under law anyway. Nor do you need to use these names in order to make free use of the
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
[M-F-T set to selussos and debian-legal.] On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 11:04:35AM -0500, selussos wrote: Sorry for the noise but I was unsure if I needed to subscribe or not. Someone kindly let me know that my post got through so I think it's better I just reply as needed. If you think that this is burdensome I will subscribe if that is preferred. I am responding to this list, since a concerned free software enthusiast has told me that several concerns about our license have been raised here. I really did not know of this as I, nor any other X-Ozzie, had been contacted previous to that first contact about any of these concerns. If someone would like us to comment on the X-Oz license issues, I will gladly do so. Please let me know what the pertinent issues are, as you see it, and hopefully I will be able to allay your concerns. Thank you again for your concern and interest. Hi Sue, Thank you for contacting us. As summarized by Simon Law, we have concerns with two clauses in the X-Oz License. 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. We find this statement to be a bit confusing. Here are some questions that may make it less so for us. 1) Can this clause be satisfied simply by including the license text in end-user documentation, since the license text includes verbatim the required acknowledgement? 2) Is there an objective set of characteristics that distinguish end-user documentation from any other kind of documentation? 3) If the answer to 2) is no, or you if you are unable to think of any, would you strike the term end-user from the license text, and apply the amended license to all of the code copyrighted by X-Oz Technologies, Inc. that is currently in public circulation? 4) Is it the position of X-Oz Technologies, Inc., that this clause is binding upon the licensee even if end-user documentation included with the redistribution neither contains, nor is derived from, work copyrighted by X-Oz Technologies, Inc., and licensed under these terms? [ For example, if I am distributing Vim, the text editor, as well as its user manual, on a CD-ROM to someone, and include the source code to the XFree86 X server from the XFree86 CVS trunk as of November 2003 on that same CD-ROM as a convenience, am I required to modify the Vim documentation to include the statement This product includes software developed by X-Oz Technologies (http://www.x-oz.com/).? ] 5) If the answer to 4) is yes, am I relieved of the obligation of this clause of the license if the only end-user documentation I am distributing is not copyrighted by me, and I have no license from the copyright holder to modify that documentation? 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. We have some concerns about this clause as well. 6) What does or otherwise mean? It would seem to include all forms of communication other than advertising (examples include magazine reviews, blog postings, and so forth). 7) What does or other dealings mean? It would seem to include all activities that can be promoted other than sale or use (examples include charitable donations of copies of the software, or the cooking of a CD-ROM with a copy of the software encoded on it in a microwave oven). 8) As far as the participants on the debian-legal mailing list are aware, there is no jurisdiction in the world in which a right to use the name of a copyright holder for promotional purposes automatically attaches to any copyright license, no matter how liberal its terms. Can you tell us why X-Oz Technology, Inc., feels this clause is necessary? Thank you very much for your time, and for shedding light on these issues. -- G. Branden Robinson|It was a typical net.exercise -- a Debian GNU/Linux |screaming mob pounding on a greasy [EMAIL PROTECTED] |spot on the pavement, where used to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |lie the carcass of a dead horse. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
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. Why does this clause attempt to use a copyright licence forbid basic rights granted in most trademark law? Why does it speak of this Software instead of the more usual products derived from this Software? Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Re: Summary: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?, was Re: GPL+ for docs
By the way, where are the dissident test (or for that matter, the desert island test) described? They don't seem to be in the definition of the DFSG on debian.org, a search on debian.org for dissident brings up no results, and it's not clear that an outside person who looks at a summary would know what they mean.
Re: X-Oz Technologies
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 11:04:35AM -0500, selussos wrote: I am responding to this list, since a concerned free software enthusiast has told me that several concerns about our license have been raised here. I really did not know of this as I, nor any other X-Ozzie, had been contacted previous to that first contact about any of these concerns. If someone would like us to comment on the X-Oz license issues, I will gladly do so. Please let me know what the pertinent issues are, as you see it, and hopefully I will be able to allay your concerns. If you could comment on the issues raised in this email it would be most helpful: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200402/msg00162.html Thanks. -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking. - H.L. Mencken Thanks for the note Ben and cc'ing me as I am not on the debian-legal list. I will discuss the license in the format recommended by the OSI and I hope that that clarifies the issues raised and allays all concerns: First, the license in question, which we have termed the X-Oz license can be found in full at: http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html. The first part of the license (the permission notice) is taken from the XFree86 1.0 license. The XFree86 1.0 license is the same as the X.Org license. Since Debian ships versions of XFree86 under that license, we assume it is considered DSFG-free. 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: The first three condition clauses are taken from the Apache 1.1 license, which we again assume to be DSFG-free since Debian ships versions of Apache that are subject to that license: 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. The fourth condition is from the XFree86 1.0 license: 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. And finally our disclaimer notice is also from the Apache 1.1 license. 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 Best Regards and thanks for your concern. Sue P.S. The Apache 1.1 is also on the OSI as OSI-compliant, http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apachepl.php Don't judge each day by the harvest you reap, but by the seeds you plant. - Robert Louis Stevenson
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:12:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 02:28:37PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote: 1) Do you need the right to use the name of the copyright holder in order to make free use of the software? Copyright doesn't cover usage, it covers copying. 2) Do you need the right to use the name of the software in order to make free use of the software? Copyright doesn't cover usage, it covers copying. You know what I meant Branden. My emails aren't a license. Please don't nitpick them when you know what I mean. My answer to those questions are: 1) Not outside of attribution of the copyright. A copyright license, or an attempt thereat, must not forbid the communication of factual information, or usage of the name of the copyright holder is any way that is consistent with the principles of free expression. This not only includes factual statements, but parody, satire, editorializing. It does not include libel or false claims of endorsement. Any attempt by a copyright license to prohibit protected expression is probably unenforceable (and unconstitutional if prosecuted as criminal copyright infringement by the U.S. government). Since the Debian Project does not have the resources to pursue court battles, we tend to regard all clauses of a copyright license as enforceable, especially since not all countries have equally liberal laws regarding free expression, and Debian produces an OS with a worldwide audience. I see this statement as utterly irrelevent. Other countries have entirely different laws regarding trademark rights, copyrights, an all varieties of rights. But none of this really matters because as long as the copyright holder doesn't interpret their license in such a way as to prevent that. I have to wonder why you're questioning such language that has been long used and included in Debian all of a sudden. To my knowledge, this language has never been interpreted to behave this way, nor attempted to be used to restrict anything like this. 2) Yes, unless the software has been modified. I think any attempt to use copyright licenses to enforce common-law trademark rights should be regarded with suspicioun, since common-law trademark right vest regardless of any copyright license. In relation to how this license it depends on how you look at this statement. If you look at it as taking away rights then you have a point. But I don't look at the language that way. I look as it giving you trademark rights. It specifices you have the rights to use the marks to comply with the license but not otherwise. When viewed in the context that this is a copyright license, not a contract or trademark licensing agreement of some sort, I don't think this is inconsistent with the meaning. I think the intent here is to permit you to use the name as necessary and reserve all the other rights that are usually reserved to the trademark owner. I will admit that it is poorly worded to serve this purpose. But this is a long standing clause. These constant attempts to piggyback non-copyright-related means of revoking a copyright license are misguided at best and malevolent at worst. What's wrong with a copyright holder including a clause in his Open Source license that terminates a licensee's rights to the software if the licensee should ever be involved in an automobile accident with the copyright holder? Furthermore, it is not acceptable for a copyright license to place restrictions on software interfaces. E.g., a Debian package should be able to be named apache, or declare that it Provides: apache, to satisfy the requirements of other packages that require an Apache-compatible HTTP server. I don't disagree, but then I think the Apache's trademark/endorsement clause is far worse than the X-Oz license. If you say yes to both of these questions without qualification then any other license without permission to use the names would not be free. If you use language like without qualification, we're probably not going to have a very enlightening discussion. Is this a response or just a jab? You obviously haven't said yes without qualification. The cornerstone of my argument in my opinion is that most other licenses do not provide such a permission. Most licenses don't need to provide permission. All they need to do is not step beyond what copyright law allows. This all comes down to how you view the license. Like I explained above, I'm viewing the license the opposite way from you are. As a result I don't think it's steping beyond coyright law. I don't think you have the rights these licenses take away from you even if the clause was omitted. Then why saddle the license with irrelevancies? To make it clear that they can't be stopped from complying with the license under trademark law. Nope I didn't. But because the name Apache is commonly used to refer to the software I think
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:37:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: 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. I'd like to remind everyone this is directly taken from the Apache 1.1 license. We find this statement to be a bit confusing. Here are some questions that may make it less so for us. 1) Can this clause be satisfied simply by including the license text in end-user documentation, since the license text includes verbatim the required acknowledgement? 2) Is there an objective set of characteristics that distinguish end-user documentation from any other kind of documentation? 3) If the answer to 2) is no, or you if you are unable to think of any, would you strike the term end-user from the license text, and apply the amended license to all of the code copyrighted by X-Oz Technologies, Inc. that is currently in public circulation? 4) Is it the position of X-Oz Technologies, Inc., that this clause is binding upon the licensee even if end-user documentation included with the redistribution neither contains, nor is derived from, work copyrighted by X-Oz Technologies, Inc., and licensed under these terms? [ For example, if I am distributing Vim, the text editor, as well as its user manual, on a CD-ROM to someone, and include the source code to the XFree86 X server from the XFree86 CVS trunk as of November 2003 on that same CD-ROM as a convenience, am I required to modify the Vim documentation to include the statement This product includes software developed by X-Oz Technologies (http://www.x-oz.com/).? ] 5) If the answer to 4) is yes, am I relieved of the obligation of this clause of the license if the only end-user documentation I am distributing is not copyrighted by me, and I have no license from the copyright holder to modify that documentation? Why are these questions not being asked also about the Apache license as well? Why haven't they been asked before? How is this organizations use of language that we've used for several years any more questionable than the ASFs? 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 clause also isn't new. It's already in the existing X licenses. It's clause 4 of the XFree86 1.1 license. And the last line of the XFree86 1.0 license. The language is identical except for the replacing the organization name with X-Oz, you can see the XFree86 licenses at: http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses It's also in the X.org license that I believe XFree86 contains code from, the language in this case uses copyright holder instead of the organization name: http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html We have some concerns about this clause as well. 6) What does or otherwise mean? It would seem to include all forms of communication other than advertising (examples include magazine reviews, blog postings, and so forth). 7) What does or other dealings mean? It would seem to include all activities that can be promoted other than sale or use (examples include charitable donations of copies of the software, or the cooking of a CD-ROM with a copy of the software encoded on it in a microwave oven). 8) As far as the participants on the debian-legal mailing list are aware, there is no jurisdiction in the world in which a right to use the name of a copyright holder for promotional purposes automatically attaches to any copyright license, no matter how liberal its terms. Can you tell us why X-Oz Technology, Inc., feels this clause is necessary? Based upon what I've been told from them directly they included it because it had always been there. They wanted a license that was similar to the existing X licenses. I really don't understand why the X-Oz / XFree86 licenses are being picked on (and I really think they are being picked on) over these license terms. Other projects use these same terms. I haven't seen anyone suggest Apache or XFree86 under the 1.0 license should be pulled because of these problems. Nor has this language ever proved to be a problem so far for these other projects. -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking. - H.L. Mencken
Re: Summary: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?, was Re: GPL+ for docs
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, where are the dissident test (or for that matter, the desert island test) described? They don't seem to be in the definition of the DFSG on debian.org, a search on debian.org for dissident brings up no results, and it's not clear that an outside person who looks at a summary would know what they mean. Tests like the dissident test and the dessert island test are sort of unofficial (or maybe semi-official) rules of thumb for deciding whether restrictions (generally but not necessarily on modification) are meaningful or not. The idea is that you imagine a particular scenario, and try to decide if the individual in the scenario can freely use the software. Take a look at section 8 of: http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
- Original Message - From: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: selussos [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 5:38 PM Subject: Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License 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. Why does this clause attempt to use a copyright licence forbid basic rights granted in most trademark law? Why does it speak of this Software instead of the more usual products derived from this Software? Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. This clause is also in the X.org license and is found throughout X. We chose to be specific because we are the _only_ copyright holder, which is not the case, as you will notice, for X.org. Thanks for letting me clear that one up. Best Regards Sue You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. - Naguib Mahfouz
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:05:22PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote: On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:12:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Copyright doesn't cover usage, it covers copying. You know what I meant Branden. My emails aren't a license. Please don't nitpick them when you know what I mean. Well, no, I didn't know what you meant, actually; I try to make as few assumptions as possible, especially when it comes to the opinions people who have only recently started contributing to the debian-legal list. Any attempt by a copyright license to prohibit protected expression is probably unenforceable (and unconstitutional if prosecuted as criminal copyright infringement by the U.S. government). Since the Debian Project does not have the resources to pursue court battles, we tend to regard all clauses of a copyright license as enforceable, especially since not all countries have equally liberal laws regarding free expression, and Debian produces an OS with a worldwide audience. I see this statement as utterly irrelevent. How so? Do you not permit principles of free expression to inform your interpretation of what is and is not legitimate in a free software license? Other countries have entirely different laws regarding trademark rights, copyrights, an all varieties of rights. Sure. It's not a complete free-for-all, though, as most countries of relevance to Debian are signatories of the Berne Convention. But none of this really matters because as long as the copyright holder doesn't interpret their license in such a way as to prevent that. Perfectly true. I have to wonder why you're questioning such language that has been long used and included in Debian all of a sudden. Because A) that's how we find out how the copyright holder interprets his/her/its license (see above), and B) incorporation of old language in a new license is just as worthy of study as new language in a new license. *Something*, after all, motivates people to draft new licenses. If it is dissatisfaction with existing licenses, it's worth attempting to discern what the perceived deficiencies in the existing licenses are. To my knowledge, this language has never been interpreted to behave this way, nor attempted to be used to restrict anything like this. It does not follow that a person or organization which goes to the trouble of creating a new license is going to hew precisely to pre-existing interpretations of license language. Particularly not if different copyright holders interpret the same language differently, as occasionally happens. I think any attempt to use copyright licenses to enforce common-law trademark rights should be regarded with suspicioun, since common-law trademark right vest regardless of any copyright license. In relation to how this license it depends on how you look at this statement. If you look at it as taking away rights then you have a point. But I don't look at the language that way. I must confess I don't see why. Here's where the permissions are granted: 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: [...] The remainder of the license, up to the warranty disclaimer, consists of restrictions on the permissions granted above. I look as it giving you trademark rights. I see. Where in the above language are trademark rights granted? It specifices you have the rights to use the marks to comply with the license but not otherwise. A mandate is not a right. The license mandates the use of a the trademark is one narrow case and forbids its use in, as far as I can tell, all other communications. As I said in my mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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. We have some concerns about this clause as well. 6) What does or otherwise mean? It would seem to include all forms of communication other than advertising (examples include magazine reviews, blog postings, and so forth). 7) What does or other dealings mean? It would seem to include all activities that can be promoted other than sale or use (examples include charitable donations of copies of the software, or the cooking of a CD-ROM with a copy of the software encoded on it in a microwave oven). When viewed in the context that this is a copyright license, not a contract or trademark licensing agreement of some sort, I don't
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:19:32PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote: On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:37:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: 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. I'd like to remind everyone this is directly taken from the Apache 1.1 license. Okay. How is that relevant? [snip] Why are these questions not being asked also about the Apache license as well? Because the subject of this thread is the X-Oz license? Because as far as I know, the first time those questions had been asked in precisely that form was when I wrote them earlier today? (I hereby attest that the message to which you replied was wholly of my own authorship, except where I explicitly quoted others -- i.e., I didn't plagiarize someone's list of questions to ask about licenses or something like that). Why haven't they been asked before? Probably, some of them have. In any case, I think the answer to your question is that debian-legal is a fairly informal, organic body that has only over the past year to year-and-a-half started to get more formal about how it handles licensing issues for the Project. This list, in the sense of the kind of traffic and discussion you see on it, didn't spring out of the forehead of Zeus. It sort of accreted and evolved, as its contributors gained experience. How is this organizations use of language that we've used for several years any more questionable than the ASFs? Why do you infer that the ASF's interpretation of the same language should *not* be questioned? The X-Oz license is new (well, if 6 months old or so, is new, anyway). Is there some deadline we should know about, after which a license must be treated as DFSG-free by default no matter what its actual terms? 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 clause also isn't new. It's already in the existing X licenses. Yes; the X.Org Foundation is aware of that, and last I checked, someone was going to bring it up with the Open Group. While this happened on the public xorg_foundation mailing list, feel free to poke me for a status update in a couple of weeks if you don't hear anything, as I should be keeping an eye on it. 6) What does or otherwise mean? It would seem to include all forms of communication other than advertising (examples include magazine reviews, blog postings, and so forth). 7) What does or other dealings mean? It would seem to include all activities that can be promoted other than sale or use (examples include charitable donations of copies of the software, or the cooking of a CD-ROM with a copy of the software encoded on it in a microwave oven). 8) As far as the participants on the debian-legal mailing list are aware, there is no jurisdiction in the world in which a right to use the name of a copyright holder for promotional purposes automatically attaches to any copyright license, no matter how liberal its terms. Can you tell us why X-Oz Technology, Inc., feels this clause is necessary? Based upon what I've been told from them directly they included it because it had always been there. They wanted a license that was similar to the existing X licenses. Okay. Should people not be willing to accept responsibility for the licenses they apply to their software, even when they write those licenses? Even if a license is formed but cutting-and-pasting language from other licenses, the author under this process is responsible for understanding and explaining its meaning to potential licensees. That's my opinion, anyway. I really don't understand why the X-Oz / XFree86 licenses are being picked on (and I really think they are being picked on) over these license terms. Other projects use these same terms. I haven't seen anyone suggest Apache or XFree86 under the 1.0 license should be pulled because of these problems. Nor has this language ever proved to be a problem so far for these other projects. Failure to be vigilant in the past is a poor justification for failure to be vigilant now. I have no problem with using the level of scrutiny I -- and others -- have brought to bear on the X-Oz license to other licenses. In fact, I think that would be a good thing. It cannot hurt the FLOSS community to get more sophisticated about these things. That way, we better serve the interests of our friends who are bored to tears by
Re: X-Oz Technologies
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 05:15:45PM -0500, selussos wrote: Thanks for the note Ben and cc'ing me as I am not on the debian-legal list. I will discuss the license in the format recommended by the OSI and I hope that that clarifies the issues raised and allays all concerns: First, the license in question, which we have termed the X-Oz license can be found in full at: http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html. The first part of the license (the permission notice) is taken from the XFree86 1.0 license. The XFree86 1.0 license is the same as the X.Org license. Since Debian ships versions of XFree86 under that license, we assume it is considered DSFG-free. [...] The first three condition clauses are taken from the Apache 1.1 license, which we again assume to be DSFG-free since Debian ships versions of Apache that are subject to that license: [...] The fourth condition is from the XFree86 1.0 license: [...] And finally our disclaimer notice is also from the Apache 1.1 license. 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 [...] Best Regards and thanks for your concern. Thanks for identifying the origin of the component parts of your license; that is indeed useful. However, X-Oz Technolgies, Inc., is not the Apache Software Foundation, nor the XFree86 Project, Inc., and X-Oz is at liberty to interpret the language in your copyright license as it sees fit. X-Oz is not legally bound by the interpretations -- even of the same precise language -- of the Apache Software Foundation and XFree86 Project, Inc. We have actually seen very divergent interpretations of the same language before. For example, most people familar with the traditional BSD license used by the Regents of the University of California regard the language permission to copy, modify, and distribute this software is hereby granted as meaning that you can copy, modify, and distribute the software so licensed. But the University of Washington, which applied that language to the PINE mail user agent software, disagrees: In particular, the earliest Pine licenses included the words: Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software... is hereby granted, but some people tried to pervert the meaning of that sentence to define this software to include derivative works of this software. The intent has always been that you can re-distribute the UW distribution, but if you modify it, you have created a derivative work and must ask permission to redistribute it. There has never been implicit or explicit permission given to redistribute modified or derivative versions without permission.[1] Consequently, we have learned that the copyright holder's interpretation of his, her, or its license does matter. If you could answer the eight questions I posed in an earlier mail I think would shed a lot of light on things. Thanks again for your patience and assistance! [1] http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/legal.html -- G. Branden Robinson| Mob rule isn't any prettier just Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X-Oz Technologies
At 08:39 PM 3/2/2004 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 05:15:45PM -0500, selussos wrote: Thanks for the note Ben and cc'ing me as I am not on the debian-legal list. I will discuss the license in the format recommended by the OSI and I hope that that clarifies the issues raised and allays all concerns: First, the license in question, which we have termed the X-Oz license can be found in full at: http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html. The first part of the license (the permission notice) is taken from the XFree86 1.0 license. The XFree86 1.0 license is the same as the X.Org license. Since Debian ships versions of XFree86 under that license, we assume it is considered DSFG-free. [...] The first three condition clauses are taken from the Apache 1.1 license, which we again assume to be DSFG-free since Debian ships versions of Apache that are subject to that license: [...] The fourth condition is from the XFree86 1.0 license: [...] And finally our disclaimer notice is also from the Apache 1.1 license. 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 [...] Best Regards and thanks for your concern. Thanks for identifying the origin of the component parts of your license; that is indeed useful. However, X-Oz Technolgies, Inc., is not the Apache Software Foundation, nor the XFree86 Project, Inc., and X-Oz is at liberty to interpret the language in your copyright license as it sees fit. X-Oz is not legally bound by the interpretations -- even of the same precise language -- of the Apache Software Foundation and XFree86 Project, Inc. Branden, Does debian-legal ask these questions to every copyright holder who _reuses_ an existing and acceptable license? I have read elsewhere on this list that _intent_ does not matter only the text does and I think that makes sense since one cannot interpret the license everytime for every reader. Regards Sue
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I'd like to remind everyone this is directly taken from the Apache 1.1 license. Okay. How is that relevant? I thought it was relevent on the basis that Debian had already reviewed that license. But on the basis of what you say below perhaps that isn't true. Why are these questions not being asked also about the Apache license as well? Because the subject of this thread is the X-Oz license? Because as far as I know, the first time those questions had been asked in precisely that form was when I wrote them earlier today? (I hereby attest that the message to which you replied was wholly of my own authorship, except where I explicitly quoted others -- i.e., I didn't plagiarize someone's list of questions to ask about licenses or something like that). Well I didn't mean that you did copy them from someplace else. I realize they were tailored to the problems you raised. My point is that if you've found problems with a particular clause that is shared by many licenses. I think we should deal with all of those licenses. Not just the new guy on the block. Maybe we need something that looks at existing licenses and finds similarties for us. Why haven't they been asked before? Probably, some of them have. In any case, I think the answer to your question is that debian-legal is a fairly informal, organic body that has only over the past year to year-and-a-half started to get more formal about how it handles licensing issues for the Project. This list, in the sense of the kind of traffic and discussion you see on it, didn't spring out of the forehead of Zeus. It sort of accreted and evolved, as its contributors gained experience. That's a fair response. I guess I expected that licenses were held to the same level of scrutiny in the past. Which is why I'm somewhat aghast that the X-Oz license was so quickly dismissed. I'd think that a license that shares clauses with software already in Debian and that seem to be problematic should be discussed more extensively. How is this organizations use of language that we've used for several years any more questionable than the ASFs? Why do you infer that the ASF's interpretation of the same language should *not* be questioned? Quite the contrary. My argument is that if you're questioning this usage of the language then every use should be called into quesiton. The X-Oz license is new (well, if 6 months old or so, is new, anyway). Is there some deadline we should know about, after which a license must be treated as DFSG-free by default no matter what its actual terms? No of course not. But given the visibility of Apache. I was working under the presumption that the license had been carefully looked at. Maybe I should have made precisely the opposite assumption. Yes; the X.Org Foundation is aware of that, and last I checked, someone was going to bring it up with the Open Group. While this happened on the public xorg_foundation mailing list, feel free to poke me for a status update in a couple of weeks if you don't hear anything, as I should be keeping an eye on it. Now I'm confused... People knew about the shared clauses with the X.org and XFree86 1.0 licenses and didn't mention it here? Based upon what I've been told from them directly they included it because it had always been there. They wanted a license that was similar to the existing X licenses. Okay. Should people not be willing to accept responsibility for the licenses they apply to their software, even when they write those licenses? Even if a license is formed but cutting-and-pasting language from other licenses, the author under this process is responsible for understanding and explaining its meaning to potential licensees. That's my opinion, anyway. I think that's a fair characterization. But I have to take some issue with how this license has been handled. Someone asked about the license. You replied at length. A few other people replied with minor comments. Someone posted a summary. A few more comments about the summary. An updated version of the summary is written and done. However, nobody even thought to talk to the authors. Why not? Isn't it at least worth an attempt to ask them for a clarification? Until I contacted them yesterday, they hadn't heard anything about this discussion. Am I alone in seeing a problem with this? I really don't understand why the X-Oz / XFree86 licenses are being picked on (and I really think they are being picked on) over these license terms. Other projects use these same terms. I haven't seen anyone suggest Apache or XFree86 under the 1.0 license should be pulled because of these problems. Nor has this language ever proved to be a problem so far for these other projects. Failure to be vigilant in the past is a poor justification for failure to be vigilant now. I have no
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 08:15:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Well, no, I didn't know what you meant, actually; I try to make as few assumptions as possible, especially when it comes to the opinions people who have only recently started contributing to the debian-legal list. I meant use as in the things Debian wants users to be able to do. Copy, modify, redistribute, etc... Typing out the list can get quite tedious. Any attempt by a copyright license to prohibit protected expression is probably unenforceable (and unconstitutional if prosecuted as criminal copyright infringement by the U.S. government). Since the Debian Project does not have the resources to pursue court battles, we tend to regard all clauses of a copyright license as enforceable, especially since not all countries have equally liberal laws regarding free expression, and Debian produces an OS with a worldwide audience. I see this statement as utterly irrelevent. How so? Do you not permit principles of free expression to inform your interpretation of what is and is not legitimate in a free software license? I'm just reading this license in a far less restrictive way. I have to wonder why you're questioning such language that has been long used and included in Debian all of a sudden. Because A) that's how we find out how the copyright holder interprets his/her/its license (see above), and B) incorporation of old language in a new license is just as worthy of study as new language in a new license. *Something*, after all, motivates people to draft new licenses. If it is dissatisfaction with existing licenses, it's worth attempting to discern what the perceived deficiencies in the existing licenses are. Which brings me back to why nobody, until I did so yesterday, contacted the copyright holder. To my knowledge, this language has never been interpreted to behave this way, nor attempted to be used to restrict anything like this. It does not follow that a person or organization which goes to the trouble of creating a new license is going to hew precisely to pre-existing interpretations of license language. Particularly not if different copyright holders interpret the same language differently, as occasionally happens. Fair enough. I think any attempt to use copyright licenses to enforce common-law trademark rights should be regarded with suspicioun, since common-law trademark right vest regardless of any copyright license. In relation to how this license it depends on how you look at this statement. If you look at it as taking away rights then you have a point. But I don't look at the language that way. I must confess I don't see why. Here's where the permissions are granted: 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: [...] The remainder of the license, up to the warranty disclaimer, consists of restrictions on the permissions granted above. I look as it giving you trademark rights. I see. Where in the above language are trademark rights granted? It's not in this language that you quoted. I was referring to Clause 4. It specifices you have the rights to use the marks to comply with the license but not otherwise. A mandate is not a right. The license mandates the use of a the trademark is one narrow case and forbids its use in, as far as I can tell, all other communications. I think it's just a poorly constructed use of something like this: You may use the name of X-Oz Technologies to comply with the terms of this notice, all other trademark rights are reserved without prior written authorization. Granted it doesn't say that. But that's how I'm reading it. As I said in my mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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. We have some concerns about this clause as well. 6) What does or otherwise mean? It would seem to include all forms of communication other than advertising (examples include magazine reviews, blog postings, and so forth). 7) What does or other dealings mean? It would seem to include all activities that can be promoted other than sale or use (examples include charitable donations of copies of the software, or the cooking of a CD-ROM with a copy of the software encoded on it in a microwave
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 06:48:35PM -0500, selussos wrote: On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 6:38 PM, MJ Ray wrote: Why does this clause attempt to use a copyright licence forbid basic rights granted in most trademark law? Why does it speak of this Software instead of the more usual products derived from this Software? This clause is also in the X.org license and is found throughout X. We chose to be specific because we are the _only_ copyright holder, which is not the case, as you will notice, for X.org. Susan, I don't think you've answered the specific questions here. The first question is loaded and very difficult to respond to. Because it works on the presumption that you are trying to use a copyright license in a way I don't think you intend. So let me ask two questions, that are different but cover the questions above: 1) Would you consider the following language to be equivalent to your interpretation of Clause 4 of the X-Oz license: The name X-Oz Technologies may not may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. (Note that this is the BSD endorsement clause without the language about contributors names) 2) Would you consider using this language instead of your existing language for Clause 4 if it would relieve some fears that people have about your license and resulted in better acceptance and use of your software? -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking. - H.L. Mencken
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On 2004-03-02 23:48:35 + selussos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why does this clause attempt to use a copyright licence forbid basic rights granted in most trademark law? [...] This clause is also in the X.org license and is found throughout X. We chose to be specific because we are the _only_ copyright holder, which is not the case, as you will notice, for X.org. Thanks for letting me clear that one up. I'm sorry to write that I don't think you answered my question above at all, but stated a case where the questionable term is in a different copyright licence. However, I think the use is significantly different. The copyright permissions granted by the X.org licence found at http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html do not seem to be conditional on that term. The permissions of the X-Oz licence are. Could you please look at the X.org and X-Oz licences again and notice this difference? If you want to mimic the X.org licence, then will you make that clause a notice in the footer instead, please? Copyright licence conditions are the wrong way to police trademarks. -- 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: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:37:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: 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. We find this statement to be a bit confusing. Here are some questions that may make it less so for us. 1) Can this clause be satisfied simply by including the license text in end-user documentation, since the license text includes verbatim the required acknowledgement? 2) Is there an objective set of characteristics that distinguish end-user documentation from any other kind of documentation? 3) If the answer to 2) is no, or you if you are unable to think of any, would you strike the term end-user from the license text, and apply the amended license to all of the code copyrighted by X-Oz Technologies, Inc. that is currently in public circulation? 4) Is it the position of X-Oz Technologies, Inc., that this clause is binding upon the licensee even if end-user documentation included with the redistribution neither contains, nor is derived from, work copyrighted by X-Oz Technologies, Inc., and licensed under these terms? [ For example, if I am distributing Vim, the text editor, as well as its user manual, on a CD-ROM to someone, and include the source code to the XFree86 X server from the XFree86 CVS trunk as of November 2003 on that same CD-ROM as a convenience, am I required to modify the Vim documentation to include the statement This product includes software developed by X-Oz Technologies (http://www.x-oz.com/).? ] 5) If the answer to 4) is yes, am I relieved of the obligation of this clause of the license if the only end-user documentation I am distributing is not copyrighted by me, and I have no license from the copyright holder to modify that documentation? Susan, The above questions that Branden asks if answered would probably relieve the concern with this clause. Can you please reply specifically to them? 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. We have some concerns about this clause as well. 6) What does or otherwise mean? It would seem to include all forms of communication other than advertising (examples include magazine reviews, blog postings, and so forth). 7) What does or other dealings mean? It would seem to include all activities that can be promoted other than sale or use (examples include charitable donations of copies of the software, or the cooking of a CD-ROM with a copy of the software encoded on it in a microwave oven). 8) As far as the participants on the debian-legal mailing list are aware, there is no jurisdiction in the world in which a right to use the name of a copyright holder for promotional purposes automatically attaches to any copyright license, no matter how liberal its terms. Can you tell us why X-Oz Technology, Inc., feels this clause is necessary? I'm going to assume that X-Oz is going to find these questions difficult to answer because I think they were simply using a clause from the X.org and XFree86 1.1 license. See my other email with some questions that I think will be easier to answer and might result in a satesfactory resolution quicker. -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking. - H.L. Mencken
Re: X-Oz Technologies
On 2004-03-03 02:16:45 + selussos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does debian-legal ask these questions to every copyright holder who _reuses_ an existing and acceptable license? The X-Oz is not directly any existing accepted licence, is it? -legal members do ask these sort of questions about most new licences, when it seems unclear. I have read elsewhere on this list [...] I strongly suggest that you give references when writing that sort of thing, else insanity may result. Also, dealing with -legal directly rather than through a summariser or maintainer means that you are talking to a range of people with different views who refine them over time to reach consensus (usually!), so someone else's bug wouldn't bind Branden. On the point under discussion, I think both licence text and holder's stated intent have some value. :-) -- 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: Summary: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?, was Re: GPL+ for docs
On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 19:41 -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, where are the dissident test (or for that matter, the desert island test) described? They don't seem to be in the definition of the DFSG on debian.org, a search on debian.org for dissident brings up no results, and it's not clear that an outside person who looks at a summary would know what they mean. Tests like the dissident test and the dessert island test are sort of unofficial (or maybe semi-official) rules of thumb for deciding whether restrictions (generally but not necessarily on modification) are meaningful or not. The idea is that you imagine a particular scenario, and try to decide if the individual in the scenario can freely use the software. Take a look at section 8 of: http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html Thank you, Jeremy! The FAQ is really good reading. :) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On 2004-03-03 03:28:38 + Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I meant use as in the things Debian wants users to be able to do. Copy, modify, redistribute, etc... Typing out the list can get quite tedious. So you didn't just mean use then? It gets confusing fast if we all use use as if it can use the meaning of another word. ;-) Which brings me back to why nobody, until I did so yesterday, contacted the copyright holder. Available time for this is finite. I prefer to code. That's why my replies are short. I'd not encountered this licence myself before, so hadn't questioned it. People who are concerned with these things need to take part. I think that's what you do. Okay I'm using confusing terminology. You're right. It's not giving you any right. I'm thinking of Clause 4 more of as an covenant not to sue you for trademark infringement simply by complying with the license. No, it's a condition that the recipient has to comply with to get copyright permission. It looks like a fairly vanilla and hard-to-enforce notice changed into a troublesome restriction. I have one sitting in my email box that I think meets that. But I think it's better if they give it to you directly. [...] Redo my work, Branden? But once license clauses are in common use, people are going to propogate them to other licenses. Is there a licence in Debian that is conditional on X-Oz's clause 4 wording? -- 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: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 04:04:22AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Available time for this is finite. I prefer to code. That's why my replies are short. I'd not encountered this licence myself before, so hadn't questioned it. People who are concerned with these things need to take part. I think that's what you do. *nod* I have one sitting in my email box that I think meets that. But I think it's better if they give it to you directly. [...] Redo my work, Branden? No, I think them making statements directly here is more effective than me relaying them. Like I said in another email. If they don't answer by tomorrow I'll forward the message. Further, I didn't ask as specific of questions as Branden did. Having his questions answered is more useful in the long run than just the email I have. At least when it comes to Clause 3. I think my alternative questions that I posted on the list (which I didn't not ask in private email) are more likely to resolve the problem with Clause 4. Or at least resolve it in a way that avoids unclear language and stops the continued use of the questionable clause. But once license clauses are in common use, people are going to propogate them to other licenses. Is there a licence in Debian that is conditional on X-Oz's clause 4 wording? I'm not sure I follow you as in what you mean by conditional. But the old XFree86 license (XFree86 4.3 and older, identified as the XFree86 1.0 license) has the exact same language. It's the very last sentence in the license, has no numbering and is after the disclaimer. -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking. - H.L. Mencken
Re: license for Federal Information Processing Standards
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 01:15:32PM -0500, Elizabeth Lennon wrote: The latest version is FIPS 180-2, and is available for download free of charge at http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/index.html. All FIPS are free of charge. Liz I suppose we don't have to summarize this, then? The archives should contain the relavant information, I hope. Well, just in case. Elizabeth Lennon, an employee of the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology acknowledged that the Federal Information Processing Standards are in the public domain. Simon
Re: Summary: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?, was Re: GPL+ for docs
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more to say on the subject: Hmm... I hate to seem authoritarian, but I'd like to see a little more formality in d-l summaries. What would be nice is a draft to go out a couple of days before the actual summary is published. This allows people who are busy to get their last words in. As well, it would be nice to quote the entire license and our exact concerns in the summary. This way, people looking through our archives in the future won't have to do more research tracking down lost texts. Does anyone think this is unreasonable? Simon
Open Publication License v1.0 is not DFSG-free. WWW pages need relicensing?
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: --- Debian-legal summary --- The OPL (Open Publication License) is not DFSG free: Oh yeah. We now have a small problem: http://www.debian.org/license Our webpages are have been judged as non-free by Debian Legal. I am willing to write up a summary to present to the appropriate people: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I presume. Should this be done? What should we recommend they do? Simon
