Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
2(c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.) This has two parts, which I will discuss separately below. However, they do share some things in common: The wording is not fixed (at least by the license[1]); you can word it however you'd like. It is only required if the program 'reads commands interactively'. And lastly, they are both small. If any of these weren't the case, I don't think there would be much argument to its freeness. First, the copyright notice. I find this to be a fairly reasonable requirement due to Title 17 USC 401(c), which states (in part) [t]he notice shall be affixed to the copies in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright. 401(d) specifies that if the notice is properly given then a defendant may not claim innocent infringement to mitigate damages. Especially after reading the copyright office's regulations on what constitute appropriate notice (see [0]) I believe that for an interactive work, the is quite reasonable. ([0] lists displaying it at login, for example.) I thus feel that this is a legal requirement for the copyright holder to claim his rights under law, thus on the free side of the line. Second, comes the warranty notice. I think Sec. 2-316 of the Uniform Commercial Code[2] covers this: ...to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. So this looks like the FSF is just making sure they are suitably conspicuous about their lack of warranty. Remember, in general, people otherwise wouldn't know that the software is as is; one of the great things about free software is you don't have to agree to a damned EULA. Once again, I think this is a quite reasonable thing to require reasonably, and (again) on the free side of the line. So, in summary, even without DFSG 10, I find GPL 2(c) free. [0] Look for 201.20 at http://copyright.gov/title37/201/index.html. [1] 'appropriate copyright notice' is defined by law. e.g., 17 USC 401. [2] I found a copy on the web; http://tinyurl.com/2c5mq. No idea if that is a session-based link though.
Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On May 21, 2004, at 18:36, Lewis Jardine wrote: 8 bears a lot of resemblance to don't break the law clauses IMO, Mexicans can't distribute this software isn't free, even if its part of the GPL.
Re: Bug#247802: ITP: libfasttrack-gift -- giFT plugin for the fastrack network
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:38:17AM -0400, Dan Weber wrote: The reason why libfasttrack-gift has never been placed into debian is because it doesn't even qualify non-free. Debian could be sued for this, and other reasons due to its reverse engineering. May I ask you in which country reverse-engineering for compatibility is forbidden? I'm just curious, because it is legal in Poland, but only for compatibility reasons, and I guess this situation fits this. regards fEnIo -- _ Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | IRC:fEnIo _|_|_ 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Polska (0 0) phone:+48602383548 | Slackware - the weakest link ooO--(_)--Ooo http://skawina.eu.org | JID:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | RLU:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#247802: ITP: libfasttrack-gift -- giFT plugin for the fastrack network
Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote: On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:38:17AM -0400, Dan Weber wrote: The reason why libfasttrack-gift has never been placed into debian is because it doesn't even qualify non-free. Debian could be sued for this, and other reasons due to its reverse engineering. May I ask you in which country reverse-engineering for compatibility is forbidden? I'm just curious, because it is legal in Poland, but only for compatibility reasons, and I guess this situation fits this. Specifically, I recall someone saying that the algorithm used by Sherman Networks is Copyrighted. Even though the upstream is reverse engineering it, I don't think its legal to use. Dan Weber regards fEnIo signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#247802: ITP: libfasttrack-gift -- giFT plugin for the fastrack network
Dan Weber wrote: Specifically, I recall someone saying that the algorithm used by Sherman Networks is Copyrighted. Even though the upstream is reverse engineering it, I don't think its legal to use. Algorithms can't be copyrighted, only specific implementations of an algorithm. Algorithms can (unfortunately) be patented, and this would have the effect you describe (prohibiting independent recreations), but I don't know if the FastTrack algorithms are patented. In every case I have seen about a FastTrack-compatible program being shut down, the program in question copied code directly from Sherman Networks' popular client for that network, and the question of patent issues never came up. - Josh Triplett
Re: Bug#247802: ITP: libfasttrack-gift -- giFT plugin for the fastrack network
* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo: May I ask you in which country reverse-engineering for compatibility is forbidden? Probably in none. But publishing your results is not automatically allowed, and sometimes, there are safeguards against producing a clone (which serves as a replacement of the original software). -- Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the following domains: bigpond.com, di-ve.com, hotmail.com, jumpy.it, libero.it, netscape.net, postino.it, simplesnet.pt, spymac.com, tatanova.com, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr, yahoo.com.
Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 10:19:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:18:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: A clause which says you must credit the original author using the following text, is not okay. That one neatly and clearly classifies the vast majority of the licenses we are confronted with (it's the counterpart to say WHAT you want, not HOW you want it - licenses should be specifications, not solutions). By the way, this is also a bit of an overgeneralization--lots of licenses specify what text must be used, eg. the original 4-clause BSD license: All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. Yeah, well, I've always said this makes the 4-clause BSD license questionable. It's a rule of thumb anyway, not a bright-line test (the desert island test is a good example of a bright-line test). You're supposed to think when applying rules like this; they're just reference points. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Warranty disclaimers and yelling
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 11:11:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 11:02:17PM -0400, Adam Kessel wrote: My understanding is that this just provides you with evidentiary support that the warranty disclaimer is unequivocal. As a counterexample, imagine a product with the warranty disclaimer in 4 point font on the inside of the packaging -- a court would likely find the disclaimer ineffective and impose an implied warranty of merchantability. If you want to disclaim this warranty, it's in your interest to set it up to make it harder for a consumer to argue that she wasn't aware of the disclaimer. I'm not aware of any particular case that hinged on mixed case versus all caps, but it does seem to be the standard way to make the disclaimer. Note that Uniform Commercial Code ? 2-316 requires any disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability to be conspicuous: (I thought SCREAMING CAPS was a standard way of saying this text isn't important; skip it, it's hard to read anyway.) I am tending to do the same, even though I know that it is actually intended as the only typewriter/ASCII/e-mail compatible way of doing bold text. Hmm. I tend to skip warranty disclaimers when reading licenses--not a very good habit, but I'm probably not alone. It makes me wonder if any licenses have snuck restrictions in by placing them in caps near the warranty disclaimer, so nobody would actually read it. I have recently seen a few (100% non-free) licenses where other onerous requirements were also emphasized with ALL CAPS, such as (paraphrased): You agree to let us wiretap everything you do, for this and that stupid reason. The general gist seems to be that any clause that takes away rights that would have been yours without the license needs to be emphasized and in-your-face, like a big sign saying abandon all hope, yea that enter here. But not clauses that merely detail how many rights you are granted or not granted, and on what general conditions those permissions are granted. Jakob -- This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings, do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue. Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any. IANAL, TINLA.
Re: DFSG#10 [was: Re: Draft Debian-legal summary of the LGPL]
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 09:18:26PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 10:19:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:18:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: A clause which says you must credit the original author using the following text, is not okay. That one neatly and clearly classifies the vast majority of the licenses we are confronted with (it's the counterpart to say WHAT you want, not HOW you want it - licenses should be specifications, not solutions). By the way, this is also a bit of an overgeneralization--lots of licenses specify what text must be used, eg. the original 4-clause BSD license: All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. Yeah, well, I've always said this makes the 4-clause BSD license questionable. It's a rule of thumb anyway, not a bright-line test (the desert island test is a good example of a bright-line test). You're supposed to think when applying rules like this; they're just reference points. Right, hence overgeneralization, not wrong. This is a reasonable guideline when writing licenses, but it doesn't seem relevant to DFSG- freeness, in most cases. (To be clear, the obnoxious advertising clause is a different issue. All we're talking about here is the following acknowledgement, which is used in many more licenses than the 4-clause BSD, often in much less obnoxious ways, such as in supporting documentation.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Bug#247802: ITP: libfasttrack-gift -- giFT plugin for the fastrack network
On May 23, 2004, at 11:38, Dan Weber wrote: The reason why libfasttrack-gift has never been placed into debian is because it doesn't even qualify non-free. Debian could be sued for this, and other reasons due to its reverse engineering. Debian has plenty of other software in its archives that is the product of reverse engineering.
Re: Bug#247802: ITP: libfasttrack-gift -- giFT plugin for the fastrack network
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:52:46PM +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote: On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:38:17AM -0400, Dan Weber wrote: The reason why libfasttrack-gift has never been placed into debian is because it doesn't even qualify non-free. Debian could be sued for this, and other reasons due to its reverse engineering. May I ask you in which country reverse-engineering for compatibility is forbidden? I'm just curious, because it is legal in Poland, but only for compatibility reasons, and I guess this situation fits this. That's because Poland is part of the EU now, where it is legal. This is good, but it's not true anywhere else; so if the reverse engineering has been done outside the EU, there's a problem. -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#247802: ITP: libfasttrack-gift -- giFT plugin for the fastrack network
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:20:47AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: May I ask you in which country reverse-engineering for compatibility is forbidden? I'm just curious, because it is legal in Poland, but only for compatibility reasons, and I guess this situation fits this. That's because Poland is part of the EU now, where it is legal. No. It was legal also before access to EU. This is good, but it's not true anywhere else; so if the reverse engineering has been done outside the EU, there's a problem. I think that many programs from OpenSource world are made via reverse engineering, and there is no problem with including them in Debian. Consider the most important. Linux kernel. Many drivers are made this way. regards fEnIo -- _ Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | IRC:fEnIo _|_|_ 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Polska (0 0) phone:+48602383548 | Slackware - the weakest link ooO--(_)--Ooo http://skawina.eu.org | JID:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | RLU:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#247802: ITP: libfasttrack-gift -- giFT plugin for the fastrack network
Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote: I think that many programs from OpenSource world are made via reverse engineering, and there is no problem with including them in Debian. Consider the most important. Linux kernel. Many drivers are made this way. regards fEnIo Don't forget SAMBA - it's a reverse-engineer of one of the key intellectual properties of one of the richest, and most sue-happy companies in the entire world. If Microsoft could sue the SAMBA team (and therefore Debian) over copyright or patent infringement, surely they would have done so by now? I think it is fair to say that if SAMBA is not considered a risk to Debian, neither should any other code reverse-engineered for purposes of compatibility. What may be an issue though is if libfasttrack-gift has infringed copyright by directly copying code from fastrack, rather than by black-box reverse engineering. -- Lewis Jardine IANAL, IANADD
Re: Bug#247802: ITP: libfasttrack-gift -- giFT plugin for the fastrack network
Wouter Verhelst writes: This is good, but it's not true anywhere else; so if the reverse engineering has been done outside the EU, there's a problem. Reverse-engineering is legal in the USA. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, Wisconsin
