Inquary Footbags(Please don't ignore)
Dear Sir/Madam. We are exports and we export all kinds of (Foot bags.) for 1 to 122 panelis our product already stored. We are pleased to introduce ourselves as quality ( Foot bags.) manufacturing company with more than (10)years experience in manufacturing and export of (Foot bags) For complete range of our products. Please contact on our email address. Staff Sports@brain.net.pk Staff Sports@excel.xl.net We will anxiously wail for your valued repose. With best regards. Staff Sports Salkot. Pakistan
Requiring registration of GPL software
Hello, Sorry if this is not quite in-topic for debian-legal. I run into E4[1], a collection of Matlab functions, distributed under the GPL. However, the software can be only downloaded as a zip file protected by a password, which you can get only by contacting the authors: this effectively equals to requiring registration of the software. Apparently, this is in contrast with the GPL (see [2]). I'd just like to be sure before (politely) informing the authors of this. A quote from the download page follows: E4 Toolbox is redistributable software. You may redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) as published by the Free Software Foundation. For the moment E4 Toolbox is distributed in a encrypted zip file. CONTACT us to get the password. [1] http://www.ucm.es/info/icae/e4/ [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee Best Regards, Danilo -- Danilo Piazzalunga [EMAIL PROTECTED] ++ GPG Key available at http://pgp.mit.edu | Linux User #245762 | Fingerprint: D018 815E 8C7F 2AE2 5565 | ICQ #105550412 | 0C36 B5F6 DB20 B800 CB9F ++
Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
Danilo Piazzalunga wrote: Hello, Sorry if this is not quite in-topic for debian-legal. I run into E4[1], a collection of Matlab functions, distributed under the GPL. However, the software can be only downloaded as a zip file protected by a password, which you can get only by contacting the authors: this effectively equals to requiring registration of the software. Apparently, this is in contrast with the GPL (see [2]). I'd just like to be sure before (politely) informing the authors of this. A quote from the download page follows: E4 Toolbox is redistributable software. You may redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) as published by the Free Software Foundation. For the moment E4 Toolbox is distributed in a encrypted zip file. CONTACT us to get the password. IANAL, but IMO it is legal. GPL requires that vendor give you the sources of binary that you get from them. So to have sources of GPL, you may need to pay. The good thing, after you have the code, you can freely redistribute, and so nobody had to buy the sources. In other word: if you buy or download legally the GPL binary files, they MUST give for free (or small media cost) the sources. There is no requirment to make public GPL software. Immagine if a lot of people ask me about release some of my not finished GPL software? My internet band and forces will interrupt to much my work! ciao cate
Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
@ 20/05/2004 10:46 : wrote Danilo Piazzalunga : Hello, Sorry if this is not quite in-topic for debian-legal. I run into E4[1], a collection of Matlab functions, distributed under the GPL. However, the software can be only downloaded as a zip file protected by a password, which you can get only by contacting the authors: this effectively equals to requiring registration of the software. *snip* Apparently, this is in contrast with the GPL (see [2]). I'd just like to be sure before (politely) informing the authors of this. Best Regards, Danilo I don't think it's in contrast with the GPL. You are required to register to get the software _from_ _their_ _page_. Once you got it, you can do whatever the GPL permits you to do (including putting the -- possibly modified -- sources and binaries in ftp.debian.org, and no one that gets it from f.d.o needs no password or registration. Now, if they try to impinge you other restrictions when you ask for the password, *then* the software is _undistributable_ (invalid license = GPL + additional restrictions = undistributable) -- br,M
Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
Whether the E4 developers are doing wrong depends on who holds the copyright. If it's all their own code, and there is no other GPLed source included (that is copyright by someone else), the E4 developers have the right to do this. The license they are granting you specifies what you may do with it, and what you would be required to do if you further redistribute it. It doesn't place any burden on the copyright holder. However, if E4 is not all their own code, I would say this is a GPL violation. Look through the source files and see who holds all the copyrights. Mike -- Michael D. Crawford GoingWare Inc. - Expert Software Development and Consulting http://www.goingware.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tilting at Windmills for a Better Tomorrow. I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don't be gagged. -- John J. Chapman, Make a Bonfire of Your Reputations http://www.goingware.com/reputation/
Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
@ 20/05/2004 12:04 : wrote Michael D. Crawford : Whether the E4 developers are doing wrong depends on who holds the copyright. If it's all their own code, and there is no other GPLed source included (that is copyright by someone else), the E4 developers have the right to do this. The license they are granting you specifies what you may do with it, and what you would be required to do if you further redistribute it. It doesn't place any burden on the copyright holder. However, if E4 is not all their own code, I would say this is a GPL violation. Look through the source files and see who holds all the copyrights. Mike No. No. No. Sorry. No. AFAIK they are distributing in the ZIP file the source code. I did not see the binary code being distributed, and being no Matlab whiz I don't know if there is any. But... As long as they don't add any restrictions after you open and unzip the files, they are safe. They are applying GPL#3, 'a', accompanying it with the complete source code, and they would not be adding any restrictions. No person is obligated to distribute anything /as per/ the GPL, except if this person is already separately distributing something else. -- br,M
Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
Scripsit Michael D. Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whether the E4 developers are doing wrong depends on who holds the copyright. However, if E4 is not all their own code, I would say this is a GPL violation. Even if it is not all their own code, it is fine with the GPL. They have complete liberty to choose to whom they distribute their work/derivate; this includes the liberty to distribute only to people who have asked personally. Indeed, this is excactly the policy that most of us applies to _foreign_ free software that happens to be in our possession. For example, I have on my computer the source for a work derived from (a rather old release of) the Linux kernel, and I'm licensed to distribute my derivate freely. But I'm not *actually* distributing my kernel to anyone save for people who contact me personally and ask me sufficiently nicely to have it. By adopting this policy, neither I nor the E4 developers are doing anything that conflicts with our oblications under the GPL. The only way things can go wrong is if the E4 people try to extract of registrants a legally binding promise not to redistribute the stuff they get out of the zip archive. But the quote given in the initial posting strongly suggests that this is not the case. -- Henning MakholmDe kan rejse hid og did i verden nok så flot Og er helt fortrolig med alverdens militær
IBM documentation license
Hello, I have problems interpreting the following copyright statement which covers the documenting of the ICU library from IBM (which itself is free). IMHO it is non-free, however it is full of juristical english and may be acceptable for main if one can extract the relevant parts from all the blah, blah. The most interessting part is on the bottom of the text. Permission to Reprint IBM Copyrighted Publications INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION ARMONK, NEW YORK 10594 PERMISSION TO REPRINT IBM COPYRIGHTED PUBLICATIONS IBM grants permission to reproduce the requested copyrighted publication owned by INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION under the conditions specified. Such reproduction must be accompanied by the following credit line: Reprinted by permission from International Business Machines Corporation copyright (year) which should include the years in the original copyright notice for publication named. The credit line normally should appear on the page where the reproduction appears either under the title or as a footnote. When more than one IBM publication is excerpted in the same publication, a consolidated credit paragraph may be used on the title page, or in a conveniently viewable manner, listing the titles, corresponding copyright notices, and references to the points where excerpts appear. It is the understanding of INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION that the purpose for which its publications are being reproduced is accurate and true as stated in your attached request. Permission to quote from or reprint IBM publications is limited to the purpose and quantities originally requested and must not be construed as a blanket license to use the material for other purposes or to reprint other IBM copyrighted material. IBM reserves the right to withdraw permission to reproduce copyrighted material whenever, in its discretion, it feels that the privilege of reproducing its material is being used in a way detrimental to its interest or the above instructions are not being followed properly to protect its copyright. No permission is granted to use trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation and its affiliates apart from the incidental appearance of such trademarks in the titles, text, and illustrations of the named publications. The appearance should not be of a manner which might cause confusion of origin or appear to endorse non-IBM products. Any proposed use of trademarks apart from such incidental appearance requires separate approval in writing and ordinarily cannot be given. THIS PERMISSION IS PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Notices This information was developed for products and services offered in the U.S.A. IBM might not offer the products, services, or features discussed in this document in other countries. Consult your local IBM representative for information on the products and services currently available in your area. Any reference to an IBM product, program, or service is not intended to state or imply that only that IBM product, program, or service may be used. Any functionally equivalent product, program, or service that does not infringe any IBM intellectual property right may be used instead. However, it is the user's responsibility to evaluate and verify the operation of any non-IBM product, program, or service. IBM may have patents or pending patent applications covering subject matter in this document. The furnishing of this document does not give you any license to these patents. You can send license inquiries, in writing, to: IBM Director of Licensing IBM Corporation North Castle Drive Armonk, NY 10504-1785 U.S.A. For license inquiries regarding double-byte (DBCS) information, contact the IBM Intellectual Property Department in your country or send inquiries, in writing, to: IBM World Trade Asia Corporation Licensing 2-31 Roppongi 3-chome, Minato-ku Tokyo 106, Japan The following paragraph does not apply to the United Kingdom or any other country where such provisions are inconsistent with local law: INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION PROVIDES THIS PUBLICATION AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Some states do not allow disclaimer of express or implied warranties in certain transactions, therefore, this
Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
@ 20/05/2004 10:46 : wrote Danilo Piazzalunga : Hello, Sorry if this is not quite in-topic for debian-legal. I run into E4[1], a collection of Matlab functions, distributed under the GPL. However, the software can be only downloaded as a zip file protected by a password, which you can get only by contacting the authors: this effectively equals to requiring registration of the software. (me again) I just received the password for the ZIP file. I opened it, and it was a bunch of *.m files, all source, none seemed to be obfuscated, and all of them except c.m (*) had headers copyrighting them *and* establishing the GPL as the license. accompanying the *.m files, a single LICENSE.txt file containing the complete text of the GPL, including the preamble and the epilog how to GPL your work. (*) the c.m file appears to have the same effect as $ perl -pi~ -e 's/SS_DVEE/SS_DVSS/g' *.m ;; so, if lack of individual attribution is a problem (!?) just yank it off the sources, it's not referenced anywhere in the other *.m files OR in the manual. Every evidence on the table says to me this is DFSG-free. The registration process is only to their own control. If you still have doubts, contact the developers. The manual appears to be non-free. MatLab, itself, seems to be non-free. So, even if debian packages this, it should go into contrib. -- br,M
Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
Henning Makholm wrote: Indeed, this is excactly the policy that most of us applies to _foreign_ free software that happens to be in our possession. For example, I have on my computer the source for a work derived from (a rather old release of) the Linux kernel, and I'm licensed to distribute my derivate freely. But I'm not *actually* distributing my kernel to anyone save for people who contact me personally and ask me sufficiently nicely to have it. By adopting this policy, neither I nor the E4 developers are doing anything that conflicts with our oblications under the GPL. Thanks you all, you've been quite helpful (the quoted reply is especially clear). I am quite relieved now, knowing that I'll not be using/modifying/etc. some undistributable software. Kind regards, Danilo -- Danilo Piazzalunga [EMAIL PROTECTED] ++ GPG Key available at http://pgp.mit.edu | Linux User #245762 | Fingerprint: D018 815E 8C7F 2AE2 5565 | ICQ #105550412 | 0C36 B5F6 DB20 B800 CB9F ++
Re: IBM documentation license
Scripsit Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] IMHO it is non-free, however it is full of juristical english and may be acceptable for main if one can extract the relevant parts from all the blah, blah. No, this parts pretty much kills everything without even trying to make sense of the rest: IBM reserves the right to withdraw permission to reproduce copyrighted material whenever, in its discretion, it feels that the privilege of reproducing its material is being used in a way detrimental to its interest or the above instructions are not being followed properly to protect its copyright. The bottom contains a freeish-looking license to any example programs in the implementation (but only example programs, not the actual documentation): This information contains sample application programs in source language, which illustrates programming techniques on various operating platforms. You may copy, modify, and distribute these sample programs in any form without payment to IBM, for the purposes of developing, using, marketing or distributing application programs conforming to the application programming interface for the operating platform for which the sample programs are written. However, even if it may *look* freeish, it actually *is* not free, because the permission to copy, modify, and distribute is given only for certain purposes. (For example, the examples cannot be used for the purpose of deriving programs the are examples of the use of a different but related interfaces). -- Henning Makholm*Dansk Folkeparti*, nazistisk orienteret dansk parti 1941-1945, grundlagt af Svend E. Johansen og Th.M. Andersen
Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] We have allowed clauses of the fairly narrow form You must not do thing X with this work if it is illegal to do so in your jurisdiction before, though I don't care for such stupid clauses. If we have, we shouldn't have. Such clauses fail the dissident test. I think you're right. I'm quite sure these have been allowed in the past. You have convinced me that they shouldn't be allowed. :-) Imagine that the work in question is an encryption tool, and that Insert Your Favorite Evil Oppressive State has a local law forbidding the possession and distribution of cryptographic programs. Our friend the dissident nevertheless distributes the program and afterwards miraculously escapes to the free world. If the license for the work has a you-must-follow-local-law clause the dissident will now risk being sued by the author for breach of license terms. Yes. That doesn't sound free, does it? Free software must be free for dissidents too. (Or instead of the encryption, it could be *any* piece of software, and IYFEOS could have a local law against women engaging in software distribution, or against distribution of any software not specifically allowed by government censors). -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Re: IBM documentation license
Eduard Bloch wrote: Hello, I have problems interpreting the following copyright statement which covers the documenting of the ICU library from IBM (which itself is free). IMHO it is non-free, however it is full of juristical english and may be acceptable for main if one can extract the relevant parts from all the blah, blah. The most interessting part is on the bottom of the text. Permission to Reprint IBM Copyrighted Publications INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION ARMONK, NEW YORK 10594 PERMISSION TO REPRINT IBM COPYRIGHTED PUBLICATIONS IBM grants permission to reproduce the requested copyrighted publication owned by INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION under the conditions specified. Grants permission to reproduce; nothing else. Debian needs more. Such reproduction must be accompanied by the following credit line: Reprinted by permission from International Business Machines Corporation copyright (year) which should include the years in the original copyright notice for publication named. Acceptable restriction. The credit line normally should appear on the page where the reproduction appears either under the title or as a footnote. Unsure, but normally should seems to give some broad leeway. When more than one IBM publication is excerpted in the same publication, a consolidated credit paragraph may be used on the title page, or in a conveniently viewable manner, listing the titles, corresponding copyright notices, and references to the points where excerpts appear. That's good. It is the understanding of INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION that the purpose for which its publications are being reproduced is accurate and true as stated in your attached request. So the permission only applies to a specific attached request?... Permission to quote from or reprint IBM publications is limited to the purpose and quantities originally requested and must not be construed as a blanket license to use the material for other purposes or to reprint other IBM copyrighted material. ...Yep, it does. That's not a free license. It may be distributable in 'non-free' if you write your attached request broadly enough. :-) IBM reserves the right to withdraw permission to reproduce copyrighted material whenever, in its discretion, it feels that the privilege of reproducing its material is being used in a way detrimental to its interest or the above instructions are not being followed properly to protect its copyright. Non-free. No permission is granted to use trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation and its affiliates apart from the incidental appearance of such trademarks in the titles, text, and illustrations of the named publications. The appearance should not be of a manner which might cause confusion of origin or appear to endorse non-IBM products. Any proposed use of trademarks apart from such incidental appearance requires separate approval in writing and ordinarily cannot be given. This is fine; trademark protection clauses should all look like this. THIS PERMISSION IS PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Fine, usual disclaimer. Notices snip These are all informational and do not actually affect the license, as far as I can tell. COPYRIGHT LICENSE: This information contains sample application programs in source language, which illustrates programming techniques on various operating platforms. You may copy, modify, and distribute these sample programs in any form without payment to IBM, This is a license grant for the 'sample programs', and it's a broader license grant than the general grant for the 'documentation'... for the purposes of developing, using, marketing or distributing application programs conforming to the application programming interface for the operating platform for which the sample programs are written. ...and this is a non-free restriction. These examples have not been thoroughly tested under all conditions. IBM, therefore, cannot guarantee or imply reliability, serviceability, or function of these programs. Usual disclaimer. If you are viewing this information softcopy, the photographs and color illustrations may not appear. Informational, no effect. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Re: Requiring registration of GPL software
Humberto Massa wrote: MatLab, itself, seems to be non-free. So, even if debian packages this, it should go into contrib. Unless it works with GNU Octave, in which case it could go to main. - Josh Triplett
FORMAS DE CONTACTAR CON EL SE RVICIO DE ATENCI?N AL CLIENTE
Estimado cliente: Hemos recibido de su direcci?n de correo electr?nico un mensaje con el siguiente asunto: Do you? Le indicamos que el servicio de atenci?n al cliente no responde a correos electr?nicos enviados a esta direcci?n. Para contactar con el servicio de atenci?n al cliente llame al 902 500 060 o al 902 500 090 en el caso de ser una empresa. Atentamente el servicio de atenci?n al cliente
