Re: Open Software License v2.1
quick summary: not free. Contaminates other software, restrictions on modification, restrictions on use, insane liability problems, restrictions on distribution, choice of venue, patent termination, restrictions on unrelated actions by licensor. In addition, software distributed under this license needs close examination to determine if it is even distributable. Software under this license may not be distributed into certain jurisdictions. This probably makes it impossible for Debian to distribute. 1) Grant of Copyright License. Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, sublicenseable license to do the following: a. to reproduce the Original Work in copies; b. to prepare derivative works (Derivative Works) based upon the Original Work; c. to distribute copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public, with the proviso that copies of Original Work or Derivative Works that You distribute shall be licensed under the Open Software License; d. to perform the Original Work publicly; and e. to display the Original Work publicly. ok, this part looks good. 2) Grant of Patent License. Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, sublicenseable license, under patent claims owned or controlled by the Licensor that are embodied in the Original Work as furnished by the Licensor, to make, use, sell and offer for sale the Original Work and Derivative Works. fine. 3) Grant of Source Code License. The term Source Code means the preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and all available documentation describing how to modify the Original Work. non-free: all available documentation seems to contaminate other software. It seems I'm compelled to distribute, e.g., copies of my references on C++ if the work is in C++. Also, I should certainly be able to write documents describing how to modify something, and keep those private; those are separate works. (3, continued) Licensor hereby agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original Work that Licensor distributes. Licensor reserves the right to satisfy this obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the Source Code in an information repository reasonably calculated to permit inexpensive and convenient access by You for as long as Licensor continues to distribute the Original Work, and by publishing the address of that information repository in a notice immediately following the copyright notice that applies to the Original Work. This part of (3) seems OK, though awkwardly worded. It may open a loophole in the copyleft, though (e.g., I'll publish this work for 60 seconds --- long enough to post to netnews. For that period, I will have a machine readble copy in an information repository. A court would probably frown on this, though.) 4) Exclusions From License Grant. Neither the names of Licensor, nor the names of any contributors to the Original Work, nor any of their trademarks or service marks, may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this Original Work without express prior written permission of the Licensor. I don't particularly like clauses like this, but we accept them as free. (4, continued) Nothing in this License shall be deemed to grant any rights to trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets or any other intellectual property of Licensor except as expressly stated herein. Don't know why they decided to have the above clause instead of just this one (which I far prefer over the above). (4, continued) No patent license is granted to make, use, sell or offer to sell embodiments of any patent claims other than the licensed claims defined in Section 2. No right is granted to the trademarks of Licensor even if such marks are included in the Original Work. caution: this means that you may have to scrub trademarks before actually having free (or even distributable) software. (4, continued) Nothing in this License shall be interpreted to prohibit Licensor from licensing under different terms from this License any Original Work that Licensor otherwise would have a right to license. Yeah, no surprise there. 5) External Deployment. The term External Deployment means the use or distribution of the Original Work or Derivative Works in any way such that the Original Work or Derivative Works may be used by anyone other than You, whether the Original Work or Derivative Works are distributed to those persons or made available as an application intended for use over a computer network. As an express condition for the grants of license hereunder, You agree that any External Deployment by You of a Derivative Work shall be deemed a distribution and shall be licensed to all under the terms of this License, as prescribed in section 1(c) herein. non-free:
Re: MTL license
On September 13, 2004 11:28 pm, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Sep 13, 2004, at 09:13, Raul Miller wrote: On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 02:49:01AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: This is choice of venue; it means that, if the licensor wants, he can force me to trek out to Indiana at whim to defend myself in court, overriding the normal legal mechanisms for choosing a suitable venue. I believe most of d-legal considers this to be non-free; I agree. Of course, it also means that if Microsoft uses a derivative of this in some proprietary component of Windows that the licensor can avoid having to trek out to Seattle to contest the issue. You can sue Microsoft in any state in the Union, and probably most countries in the world, without this clause, too. That's because Microsoft no doubt does business in your state or country. This is probably tangential, but it may be noteworthy. It depends in part on why you are suing them, in some jurisdictions anyway, it seems. According to the interpretation of an MSN click-through (I Agree) EULA by Canadian courts in Rudder v. Microsoft Corp (1999), you are bound to the aggrement stating that disputes may only be settled in King County in the State of Washington. I believe in Caspi v. The Microsoft Network, L.L.C. (1999) upheld the same clause in New Jersy. These seem intrinsically tied to the licensing of some software with an appropriate EULA. They may prevent you from suing the licensor cost effectively or in a suitable court of law (think selecting countries who have not ratified TRIPS/Berne/Paris conventions). Potentially, albeit in a twisted way, this violates DFSG #5: discriminating against people who want to seek legal remedies against licenseors, or DFSG #6: discriminating by preventing legal remedies against the licensor in any jurisdiction but the one cited. These seem somewhat ancillary to the actual purposes of the DFSG. There is also the question of whether you can be sued by the licensor, and having agreed to the license, requiring you to present your defense in another jurisdiction. I strongly doubt this would be upheld, though you never know, particularly if there are bi/multilateral treaties involved. It violates some principles of extraterritoriality: the imposition of ones law in a foreign jurisdiction. Nevertheless, treaties like TRIPS may make extraterritorial judgment valid and enforceable, even in the absence of the defending licensee or licensor. Indeed, it is possible that a choice of venue may be cost, geographically, or legalistically unfavourable and restrictive. But then, any dispute resolution can be costly. The question is whether DFSG requires the freedom to choose a venue? Or perhaps more succinctly, whether or not the cost of legally enforceable dispute resolution is a suitable restriction on DFSG to prevent a license from reflecting free software. Best, Brian
Re: MTL license
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 12:20:08AM -0400, Brian M Hunt wrote: On September 13, 2004 11:28 pm, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: You can sue Microsoft in any state in the Union, and probably most countries in the world, without this clause, too. That's because Microsoft no doubt does business in your state or country. This is probably tangential, but it may be noteworthy. It depends in part on why you are suing them, in some jurisdictions anyway, it seems. According to the interpretation of an MSN click-through (I Agree) EULA by Canadian courts in Rudder v. Microsoft Corp (1999), you are bound to the aggrement stating that disputes may only be settled in King County in the State of Washington. I believe in Caspi v. The Microsoft Network, L.L.C. (1999) upheld the same clause in New Jersy. These seem intrinsically tied to the licensing of some software with an appropriate EULA. They may prevent you from suing the licensor cost effectively or in a suitable court of law (think selecting countries who have This can only possibly hold if you have previously legally agreed to the EULA involved. If, for instance, MS were to snaffle some of my software and use it in a product of theirs, unless I've agreed to the EULA covering *that* software, they have no grounds to claim that I have agreed to sue them in Seattle or wherever they've specified. - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Application For job
Dear Sir, From Daily DAWN I have come to know that there are some vacancies are lying under your kind control.I feel honor to offer my services. , Management Marketing. My details are given in the C.V. attached.I trust that my request will meet with your consideration and looking forward to your positive reply. Sincerely yours Ammar Ahmad Do you Yahoo!?vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! Ammar Ahmad.doc Description: Ammar Ahmad.doc
Re: GPL-licensed packages with depend-chain to OpenSSL
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote: Ok, you're right -- while copyright law makes no specific provisions about how the copy arrives,... On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 02:27:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote: That's plain wrong. Copyright law restricts actions related to a copyrighted work, not results. Cite? Berne Convention, Art. 8 to 14. Directive 2001/29/EG, Art. 3 and 4 17 USC §106 Copyright Law of Japan, Art. 22 to 28 All of these give the author the exclusive right, for example, to *make* copies. On the flip side, consider the legal principle of contributory infringement. Contributory infringment still relates to infringing actions to which one contributes. Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de
Re: MTL license
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 01:03:00AM +0200, Claus Färber wrote: Requiring that I change function names is completely non-free; this is essentially says that a forked library must be both source and binary incompatible. It's a borderline case. DFSG #4 nearly allows that. However, this only matters if none of the other options (or a combination of them) can be considered free. The only thing I can see that you might be talking about is: The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. which allows some changes to be required, but nothing says that requiring *function names* to be changed is acceptable. As a practical matter, it certainly isn't reasonable to require that all forks be made incompatible. 3a (or 3.1) actually provides three options (I have numbered them below for further discussion): 3.1.1 ``place your modifications in the Public Domain or'' 3.1.2 ``otherwise make them Freely Available, such as by [...]'' (From the Definitions section: ``Freely Available [...] also means that recipients of the item may redistribute it under the same conditions they received it.'' 3.1.3 ``or by allowing the Copyright Holder to include your modifications in the Standard Version of the Package.'' 3.1.3 is really part of 3.1.2--it's an example of an action which complies with otherwise make them Freely Available, via the such as phrase. What you suggest seems reasonable, except that all of the options listed here involve making the modifications available to the world--the examples given don't really seem to correspond to the definition given of Freely Available. I'm not sure. This isn't a problem with the real Artistic, because the original rename clause is more reasonable, so this part hasn't had to be scrutinized very much. The entire 4. You may distribute the programs of this Package in object code or executable form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following: ... section was removed. It seems like nothing in this license grants permission to distribute binaries (modified or not). As the license clearly says that it's based on the Artistic License, this seems to be intentional. I'm sure the removal of the clause was intentional. They may have simply not wanted to place the restrictions that were under that heading. I agree that the removal of permission to distribute binaries was probably not; it's an easy oversight. However, this might be due to fact that the MPL is a template library, which only consists of header files and normally is not compiled at all except as a part of a program using the library. I don't think that it was the intention of the MPL owners to make any binary of a program using the MPL completly undistributable, so there's a chance that upstream might be willing to revise the license. MTL, not MPL--different beasts. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 04:15:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:24:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 10:39:39PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: I'm not sure that this clause necessarily passes the DFSG, but it's clear that the OSI has made a good and, in my opinion, successful effort to clean it up. It's neither fair nor correct to say that nothing has changed. It's still non-free for the same reasons, so nothing relevant has changed. You mean that you still believe it's non-free because nothing relevant to your reasons has changed, and you're pretending that other perspectives don't exist. Irrelevant by the law of limiting factors. But I haven't seen anybody seriously advance any other positions. Using copyright as a defense against patents is fairly new and I've never seen a consensus on the issue. This habit people have recently developed as dismissing any answers they don't like by claiming no consensus is really fucking stupid. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
unsubscribe
Re: Open Software License v2.1
On 2004-09-14 11:40:06 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 04:15:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: Using copyright as a defense against patents is fairly new and I've never seen a consensus on the issue. This habit people have recently developed as dismissing any answers they don't like by claiming no consensus is really fucking stupid. It should probably inspire us to show, explain and/or reference consensus, rather than flame the challenger. I perceived consensus about patent licence terminates for any software patent action clauses during discussions of the draft Apache licence v2.0 in November 2003. This seems to have been limited to only the licensed work in the final version. I'm not sure of consensus on copyright licence terminates for software patent action clauses and would welcome any pointers. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://www.thewalks.co.uk stand 13,Lynn Carnival,12 Sep
Re: most liberal license
Hi Harald, Is there some other as free as public domain license? I don't like to reinvent the wheel, but I haven't found one yet.\ I ususally recommend and use the MIT-Licence for that, it essentially says the same stuff as yours, is the shortest of all on opensource.org, and is well known and widely used. (Like you, I was looking for a shortest licence once, and after consulting d-legal, I stuck to the MIT-Licence.) Link: http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php Gruesse, nomeata
Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:40:06AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: This habit people have recently developed as dismissing any answers they don't like by claiming no consensus is really fucking stupid. This habit people have recently developed as claiming their opinion as consensus when it is not is really fucking stupid. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Open Software License v2.1
* Andrew Suffield: No, the clause hasn't really changed. It's still non-free for all the same reasons. Your indirect support of software patents disturbs me.
Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:42:30PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Your indirect support of software patents disturbs me. This sentence disturbs me, for two reasons: [1] It doesn't appear to be directed at any practical issue. [2] It does appear to be directed at a person. I'm not even sure what indirect support of software patents means -- is anything other than outspoken criticism of software patents indirect support? [Personally, I don't like software patents, but also think that treating patents as a serious issue is usually but not always the wrong thing to do.] -- Raul
Re: Open Software License v2.1
* Raul Miller: I'm not even sure what indirect support of software patents means -- is anything other than outspoken criticism of software patents indirect support? If you try to convince your fellow Debian developers and upstream developers to drop all defenses against software patents, you either assume that the threat is not real (I don't think anyone here takes this position), or that the interests of the patent owners should dominate the free software community. Unfortunately, copyright licenses are the only defense against software patents which we can actually employ and which has a slight chance of being effective in a wide variety of jurisdictions. However, this discussion belongs to -project, because it's not just a question of software licenses, but also of Debian's long-term policies on software patents. (There's a new thread over there, finally.)
Re: Debian Hardened project (question about use of the Debian trademark)
Hi Martin, El mar, 14-09-2004 a las 17:40, Martin Michlmayr escribió: * Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-09-08 16:26]: I want to know if i can use the trademark Debian on the name of a project that i've started , Debian Hardened which i want to see as an official Debian sup-project. I personally feel that this name has the same problems that Trusted Debian has - it suggests that normal Debian is not secure. In any case, I think you should post your question to debian-project rather than -legal since -project is more appropriate and might get more feedback. A normal Debian is secure, depending on how the sysadmin works with the packages and how he confgiures them. But, if you have, for example, ProPolice/SSP compiled packages, there wouldn't be anyway to exploit a buffer overflow condition in the package. That's the same with kernel packages...you can choose a better secure kernel or a simple one, the difference is just what you want to choose: secure or not secure as the other... Security stays OK until somebody breaks it, and you can't predict when it will happen (and also you can't predict how it will happen!). I want to see Debian Hardened as an official Debian subproject, it's not a better, more secure un-official version of Debian, it's just a hardened tree of official Debian packafes for official Debian versions! (Also i'm working with a friend to make some enhacements for the Linux entropy pool engine, using an external TRNG device). Cheers, -- Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: Open Software License v2.1
* Raul Miller: I'm not even sure what indirect support of software patents means -- is anything other than outspoken criticism of software patents indirect support? On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 10:17:34PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: If you try to convince your fellow Debian developers and upstream developers to drop all defenses against software patents, you either assume that the threat is not real (I don't think anyone here takes this position), or that the interests of the patent owners should dominate the free software community. Yeah, great. Where's the context that makes this sentence of yours relevant? However, this discussion belongs to -project, because it's not just a question of software licenses, but also of Debian's long-term policies on software patents. (There's a new thread over there, finally.) If you're saying that you think your interjection about implicit support of software patents was off topic, I guess I'd have to agree. -- Raul
Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:42:30PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Andrew Suffield: No, the clause hasn't really changed. It's still non-free for all the same reasons. Your indirect support of software patents disturbs me. I suppose, if you were an American, you'd also be among those accusing people protesting recent military actions of supporting terrorism. This is no less idiotic. (I feel the urge to explain why, but I'm short on time and I think most people on this list can figure it out for themselves.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Real names in a football game
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 10:18:46PM +0200, Isaac Clerencia wrote: Hi, I'm the maintainer of the bygfoot package. It is a football (soccer) simulator game, and currently it includes some real player names. I think this can be illegal (also team names?). I already have a version without player names ready to be uploaded, removing team names should take a little more effort. What do you think? Using team names (and especially team logos) is a good way to get to the pointy end of a lawsuit. The names and logos are almost certainly under trademark protection, and generally aggressively guarded, since licensing names and logos to shirt makers (and game producers) is a huge revenue stream. Names of people are (curiously) less protected. It's probably defendable to use players' names in a game, but (at least in the US) it would likely attract annoying lawyers, too. I wouldn't recommend it. But then, I morally feel celebrities deserve the same protection in their own name as a corporation. dave...
Re: Real names in a football game
* David Schleef: Names of people are (curiously) less protected. Depends on the jurisdiction. If you use football player names in a football game, you'll most likely get sued (because commercial game developers have to pay $$$ to get licenses and the football organizations don't want to lose that income). It *might* be possible to get a license for free software, though, especially in countries where football is heavily subsidized.
Re: Real names in a football game
On Tuesday 14 September 2004 22:47, David Schleef wrote: Using team names (and especially team logos) is a good way to get to the pointy end of a lawsuit. The names and logos are almost certainly under trademark protection, and generally aggressively guarded, since licensing names and logos to shirt makers (and game producers) is a huge revenue stream. Names of people are (curiously) less protected. It's probably defendable to use players' names in a game, but (at least in the US) it would likely attract annoying lawyers, too. I wouldn't recommend it. But then, I morally feel celebrities deserve the same protection in their own name as a corporation. I suppose using only city names for teams would be ok. Right? pgpITuFghKcB4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 02:18:30PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:40:06AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: This habit people have recently developed as dismissing any answers they don't like by claiming no consensus is really fucking stupid. This habit people have recently developed as claiming their opinion as consensus when it is not is really fucking stupid. I have never noticed people doing that. What list are you subscribed to? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:50:50PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-09-14 11:40:06 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 04:15:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: Using copyright as a defense against patents is fairly new and I've never seen a consensus on the issue. This habit people have recently developed as dismissing any answers they don't like by claiming no consensus is really fucking stupid. It should probably inspire us to show, explain and/or reference consensus, rather than flame the challenger. Why? It's irrelevant; it's also an unfalsifiable assertion. This whole consensus nonsense is just an excuse to discard any argument without responding to it. Note how it is only ever advanced by people who want to discard valid arguments; it is never used by people who want to introduce one. There is nothing magic, interesting, relevant, possible, or valid about consensus. Whenever you see it, read unicorn; the sentence will still make about as much sense. We have never settled any issue with unicorns. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 10:53:55PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: This whole consensus nonsense is just an excuse to discard any argument without responding to it. Note how it is only ever advanced by people who want to discard valid arguments; it is never used by people who want to introduce one. Freeness questions are not black and white. Rational people can disagree on whether a given restriction is free, due to differences in personal judgement and values, and they can agree on whether it's free but arrive at the conclusion for different reasons. When there are multiple rational answers, consensus helps choose among them. If there was no room for rational disagreement, this list would have a much easier job. Further, the case of terminating copyright licenses based on patent action specifically against the work just hasn't been discussed properly. Existing cases have either been patent termination, or been much broader, by applying to patent action unrelated to the software, that made coming to a conclusion for this case irrelevant. I think it warrants discussion, and not your offhanded dismissal. I have no agenda beyond those of free software: I don't expect to be using this type of clause, I have no stake in software using them, and I have no interest in discarding any valid arguments. I don't even have a strong opinion of whether this clause is free or not (though I tend to sympathise with it and have difficulty finding problems in it). -- Glenn Maynard
Re: FIGlet: how to file an appropriate bug report?
Francesco Poli wrote: Hi all! :) I found a package in main that does not seem to comply with the DFSG. Moreover the copyright file seems inaccurate. I'm seeking help, as I would like to file a bugreport in the Right way(TM). What should I say in the bugreport? What you wrote in this mail, along with an X-Debbugs-CC: debian-legal@lists.debian.org would probably have been sufficent. The package I'm talking about is figlet: a small program to make ASCII banners and the like... Looking at the contents of the orig.tar.gz, I found a file named Artistic-license.txt that contains a license similar, but not identical to /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic I didn't have the time to revise the DFSG-freeness of this license yet, but the fact is that copyright notices in files seem to be inconsistent. Could you please post the text of Artistic-license.txt, along with a wdiff to /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic ? That would help greatly with ascertaining the Freeness of the license, and determining whether the modifications are significant. Also, note that there have been several variants of the Artistic license; this may be one of those variants. Actually file figlet.c states that the whole package is under this `Artistic license': / FIGlet Copyright 1991, 1993, 1994 Glenn Chappell and Ian Chai FIGlet Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 John Cowan FIGlet Copyright 2002 Christiaan Keet Portions written by Paul Burton and Christiaan Keet Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] FIGlet, along with the various FIGlet fonts and documentation, is copyrighted under the provisions of the Artistic License (as listed in the file Artistic-license.txt which is included in this package. / At the same time other files seem to state different things... See the following. Makefile: copyright notices with no permissions granted # Makefile for figlet version 2.2.1 (13 July 2002) # adapted from Makefile for figlet version 2.2 (15 Oct 1996) # Copyright 1993, 1994,1995 Glenn Chappell and Ian Chai # Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 John Cowan # Copyright 2002 Christiaan Keet chkfont.c, figlist, showfigfonts: no copyright notice at all These are most probably simply omissions of the licensing information; nevertheless, a clarification that the package license covers these files would be helpful. crc.c, crc.h, inflate.c, inflate.h, zipio.c, zipio.h: non-free license, I would say... /* * Copyright (c) 1995, Edward B. Hamrick * * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and * its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided * that * * (i) the above copyright notice and the text in this C comment block * appear in all copies of the software and related documentation, and * * (ii) any modifications to this source file must be sent, via e-mail * to the copyright owner (currently [EMAIL PROTECTED]) within * 30 days of such modification. This is compelled distribution. It does not permit private modifications. It fails the Dissident Test and the Desert Island Test. Non-free. Agreed. However, if, as their names indicate, these are simply implementations of CRC and compression algorithms, then they should be easily replaceable with Free versions. * * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS-IS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, * EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY * WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. * * IN NO EVENT SHALL EDWARD B. HAMRICK BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, * INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER * RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER OR NOT ADVISED OF * THE POSSIBILITY OF DAMAGE, AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. */ figfont.txt: non-free license | Draft 2.0 Copyright 1996, 1997 | by John Cowan and Paul Burton | Portions Copyright 1991, 1993, 1994 | by Glenn Chappell and Ian Chai | May be freely copied and distributed. Where's the permission to modify? That's definitely non-free. figlet.6: This file include another copyright notice that seems to cover the whole package, but the permission grant seems non-free... .\ FIGlet .\ Copyright (C) 1991, 1993, 1994 Glenn Chappell and Ian Chai .\ Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] .\ Portions Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 by John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] .\ Portions Copyright 2002 by Christiaan Keet .\ FIGlet, along with the various FIGlet fonts and documentation, may .\ be freely copied and distributed. It lacks permission to
Re: Debian Hardened project (question about use of the Debian trademark)
Hi Lorenzo, Martin, lists, Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro wrote: :: Hi Martin, :: El mar, 14-09-2004 a las 17:40, Martin Michlmayr escribió: * Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-09-08 16:26]: :: I want to know if i can use the trademark Debian on :: the name of a project that i've started , Debian :: Hardened which i want to see as an official Debian :: sup-project. I personally feel that this name has the same problems that Trusted Debian has - it suggests that normal Debian is not secure. In any case, I think you should post your question to debian-project rather than -legal since -project is more appropriate and might get more feedback. :: A normal Debian is secure, depending on how the :: sysadmin works with the packages and how he confgiures :: them. Trully. A few weeks ago, a friend of mine was talking to our Debian User Group and he told that you can setup your system in a way that it could be more secure than OpenBSD. :) I'm not here to talk about which system is the most secure, but of course, that are lot of things to consider and fine tunning when we talk about security. :: But, if you have, for example, ProPolice/SSP compiled :: packages, there wouldn't be anyway to exploit a buffer :: overflow condition in the package. :: That's the same with kernel packages...you can choose :: a better secure kernel or a simple one, the difference :: is just what you want to choose: secure or not secure :: as the other... Ok! Why I quote my friend? Because he is starting a project similar with Debian Hardened. :: Security stays OK until somebody breaks it, and you :: can't predict when it will happen (and also you can't :: predict how it will happen!). Trully. :) :: I want to see Debian Hardened as an official Debian :: subproject, it's not a better, more secure :: un-official version of Debian, it's just a hardened :: tree of official Debian packafes for official Debian :: versions! Thinking on my friend's project and in Debian Hardened, I was wondering if we could joing Debian Security and develop all this stuff there? I can say that the idea of my friend is create a kind of documentation, comparing security tools, creating benchmarks, making tests and packages, with the objective of making Sys/Net Admin life easier (and more secure). In the last months I'm trying to understand how can a person joing the Debian Security Team and help them on packages and machines, I'm not sure, but if I understand the Lorenzo idea, we can work together doing a kind of auditing and developing packages, maybe we should put it in another tree like proposed-security or security-enhanced., in manner that doesn't sounds like debian is insecure or less secure. Doing this, we have a sub project with focus on Security, official. Well, it is just a thought! :) Best Regards, -- // // Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.cathedrallabs.org / // GUD-PR / DUG-PR || http://www.debian-pr.org // GUD-BR / DUG-BR || http://www.debian-br.org // Debian Project || http://www.debian.org/ //
FIGlet: how to file an appropriate bug report?
Hi all! :) I found a package in main that does not seem to comply with the DFSG. Moreover the copyright file seems inaccurate. I'm seeking help, as I would like to file a bugreport in the Right way(TM). What should I say in the bugreport? The package I'm talking about is figlet: a small program to make ASCII banners and the like... Looking at the contents of the orig.tar.gz, I found a file named Artistic-license.txt that contains a license similar, but not identical to /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic I didn't have the time to revise the DFSG-freeness of this license yet, but the fact is that copyright notices in files seem to be inconsistent. Actually file figlet.c states that the whole package is under this `Artistic license': / FIGlet Copyright 1991, 1993, 1994 Glenn Chappell and Ian Chai FIGlet Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 John Cowan FIGlet Copyright 2002 Christiaan Keet Portions written by Paul Burton and Christiaan Keet Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] FIGlet, along with the various FIGlet fonts and documentation, is copyrighted under the provisions of the Artistic License (as listed in the file Artistic-license.txt which is included in this package. / At the same time other files seem to state different things... See the following. Makefile: copyright notices with no permissions granted # Makefile for figlet version 2.2.1 (13 July 2002) # adapted from Makefile for figlet version 2.2 (15 Oct 1996) # Copyright 1993, 1994,1995 Glenn Chappell and Ian Chai # Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 John Cowan # Copyright 2002 Christiaan Keet chkfont.c, figlist, showfigfonts: no copyright notice at all crc.c, crc.h, inflate.c, inflate.h, zipio.c, zipio.h: non-free license, I would say... /* * Copyright (c) 1995, Edward B. Hamrick * * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and * its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided * that * * (i) the above copyright notice and the text in this C comment block * appear in all copies of the software and related documentation, and * * (ii) any modifications to this source file must be sent, via e-mail * to the copyright owner (currently [EMAIL PROTECTED]) within * 30 days of such modification. This is compelled distribution. It does not permit private modifications. It fails the Dissident Test and the Desert Island Test. Non-free. * * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS-IS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, * EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY * WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. * * IN NO EVENT SHALL EDWARD B. HAMRICK BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, * INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER * RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER OR NOT ADVISED OF * THE POSSIBILITY OF DAMAGE, AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. */ figfont.txt: non-free license | Draft 2.0 Copyright 1996, 1997 | by John Cowan and Paul Burton | Portions Copyright 1991, 1993, 1994 | by Glenn Chappell and Ian Chai | May be freely copied and distributed. Where's the permission to modify? figlet.6: This file include another copyright notice that seems to cover the whole package, but the permission grant seems non-free... .\ FIGlet .\ Copyright (C) 1991, 1993, 1994 Glenn Chappell and Ian Chai .\ Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] .\ Portions Copyright 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 by John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] .\ Portions Copyright 2002 by Christiaan Keet .\ FIGlet, along with the various FIGlet fonts and documentation, may .\ be freely copied and distributed. It lacks permission to make modifications! .\ If you use FIGlet, please send an e-mail message to .\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] .\ getopt.c: seems to be public domain * Here's something you've all been waiting for: the ATT public domain * source for getopt(3). It is the code which was given out at the 1985 * UNIFORUM conference in Dallas. I obtained it by electronic mail directly * from ATT. The people there assure me that it is indeed in the public * domain. some font files (fonts/*.flf): very limited permission grant, non-free | Permission is hereby given to modify this font, as long as the | modifier's name is placed on a comment line. No permission to distribute... OK, now the copyright file states: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- This is the Debian Linux prepackaged version of Figlet, a program for doing things _ _ _ _ _ _ | (_) | _ | |_| |__ (_)___ | | | |/ / _ \ | __| '_ \| / __| | | | __/ | |_| | | | \__ \_
most liberal license
Please cc me, I'm not subscribed. Hi! I wonder if the following is a valid license, if it is found in a tarball in some file LICENSE? Is it necessary to refer to this file from every other file or is it's existance enough? | You may deal with the stuff in this package in any way you want, the | same way as if it was public domain. | | However you are totally at your own risk. I happen to use this software | but I don't claim that it is useful for anything at all. | | Note: Although you are at your own risk, I still give limited support | (such as fixing bugs) if I want to. As I'm not native speaker of english, all spelling corrections, better wordings, etc. are welcome. Is there any way to write a more liberal license? (I guess not, as public domain should be most liberal and this license tries to give you the same rights.) Is there some other as free as public domain license? I don't like to reinvent the wheel, but I haven't found one yet. Also I wonder whether this license would allow you to put the (still copyrighted) work in the public domain, as it might be allowed but clueless to put something from the public domain to the public domain. Well I wouldn't mind anyway. Harald -- http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a0300802/
Re: Open Software License v2.1
Andrew Suffield wrote: On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 04:15:59PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:24:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 10:39:39PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: I'm not sure that this clause necessarily passes the DFSG, but it's clear that the OSI has made a good and, in my opinion, successful effort to clean it up. It's neither fair nor correct to say that nothing has changed. It's still non-free for the same reasons, so nothing relevant has changed. You mean that you still believe it's non-free because nothing relevant to your reasons has changed, and you're pretending that other perspectives don't exist. Irrelevant by the law of limiting factors. But I haven't seen anybody seriously advance any other positions. Alright, now you have: I think that terminating a license because of unrelated lawsuits is unacceptable, but that terminating a license because you sue claim the work infringes one of your patents is perfectly acceptable. By suing, you are trying to take away other people's rights over the software, so you should lose yours as well. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: MTL license
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
c) rename any non-standard [-executables-] {+types and functions+}
so the names do not conflict with [-standard executables,-]
{+Standard Version,+} which must also be provided, and provide a
separate [-manual page-] {+documentation+} for each non-standard [-
executable-] {+type of function+} that clearly documents how it
differs from the Standard Version.
Requiring that I change function names is completely non-free; this is
essentially says that a forked library must be both source and binary
incompatible.
It's a borderline case. DFSG #4 nearly allows that. However, this only
matters if none of the other options (or a combination of them) can be
considered free.
I believe the resulting section 3 is non-free; none of the options are
acceptable. (Some people will argue that 3a is free, but I don't think
it is.)
3a (or 3.1) actually provides three options (I have numbered them below
for further discussion):
3.1.1 ``place your modifications in the Public Domain or''
3.1.2 ``otherwise make them Freely Available, such as by [...]'' (From
the Definitions section: ``Freely Available [...] also means
that recipients of the item may redistribute it under the same
conditions they received it.''
3.1.3 ``or by allowing the Copyright Holder to include your
modifications in the Standard Version of the Package.''
3.1.2 in combination with 3.2 looks free to me.
The entire 4. You may distribute the programs of this Package in object
code or executable form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:
... section was removed. It seems like nothing in this license grants
permission to distribute binaries (modified or not).
As the license clearly says that it's based on the Artistic License,
this seems to be intentional.
However, this might be due to fact that the MPL is a template library,
which only consists of header files and normally is not compiled at
all except as a part of a program using the library.
I don't think that it was the intention of the MPL owners to make any
binary of a program using the MPL completly undistributable, so there's
a chance that upstream might be willing to revise the license.
Claus
--
http://www.faerber.muc.de
Re: Debian Hardened project (question about use of the Debian trademark)
* Lorenzo Hernandez Garcia-Hierro [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-09-08 16:26]: I want to know if i can use the trademark Debian on the name of a project that i've started , Debian Hardened which i want to see as an official Debian sup-project. I personally feel that this name has the same problems that Trusted Debian has - it suggests that normal Debian is not secure. In any case, I think you should post your question to debian-project rather than -legal since -project is more appropriate and might get more feedback. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open Software License v2.1
I don't think I've seen anybody convincingly claim consensus -- I see a lot of but you don't have a consensus for that, so it can't be true! But most of the convincing arguments I see are by reason, not by frantic pointing to authority. Even the most hotly contested issues of the last few years -- QPL, GFDL, that sort of thing -- have had pretty clear consensus on the basic facts, very clear camps who wanted each license found free, and very clear questions which those camps couldn't answer. The consensus metric is overrated. What really matters is not a consensus of whether something's free or non-free, but whether there's a consensus on the facts; after that, whether a license is free or non-free is generally obvious. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Real names in a football game
Hi, I'm the maintainer of the bygfoot package. It is a football (soccer) simulator game, and currently it includes some real player names. I think this can be illegal (also team names?). I already have a version without player names ready to be uploaded, removing team names should take a little more effort. What do you think? Best regards P.S. Include me in the CC as I'm not subscribed. pgpC4aPCYviXi.pgp Description: PGP signature
