Re: Is this license DFSG free?
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:44:55PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > That said, it's usually a bit of a leap to call "discrimination" on a
> > license clause, since on one hand, there's usually some underlying freedom
> > that the person actually has in mind; and on the other hand, every
> > restriction imaginable can be phrased as "discrimination". The "chinese
> > dissident" test is useful, but "freedom to use software without identifying
> > yourself to a third party" underlies it; the "dissident" case is just one
> > example of *why* that's important.
>
> Ah, but here is the central point of contention with regards to
> identification
> and mandatory contribution. The crazy "Base Public License" makes no
> restriction on 'use' nor does it require identification for use. In fact, it
> doesn't even require identification when you modify, only when you seek to
> distribute that modification.
Being able to distribute modifications is as intrinsic to free software
as being able to modify in the first place; permission to modify while
forbidding redistribution is clearly non-free. I tend to use the word
"use" broadly, including all of the ways one uses free software (eg.
"code reuse"), not merely running the program.
> Given that we are all concerned about copyrights and having proof that the
> code is free and not ripped off from SCO or whoever, identification seems to
> be a worthy goal of free software, which must be balanced against certain
> privacy concerns.
It doesn't seem to help; identifying myself as the author of some changes
doesn't tell anyone whether I actually have claim as the owner of those
changes (eg. work/school contracts). I don't see how there's anything to
"balance": either you have to release your identity or you don't; there
doesn't see to be anything in between. (I'm open to suggestions, of course.)
(For what it's worth, I value being able to be anonymous, but don't actually
want to *be* anonymous. That is, I attach my name to what I say and create;
I hold people who post and code anonymously in question--"do they consider
what they're writing to have so little value that they don't want themselves
associated with it?"--but I consider the ability to be anonymous, for the
cases where it really is needed, to be important, and I don't think free
licenses should prohibit it. That's just my personal rationale, as a person
not expecting to be a political dissident or to become stuck on a desert
island.)
> All of this leads me to believe that the dissident test,
> while interesting, covers way too much territory and excludes licenses that
> should be considered free. To which I will reiterate that I read the GPL
> requiring attribution with modification... Mr. Suffield's statement that FSF
> says otherwise not withstanding [1].
I don't know where you're getting that. The GPL says I must say that I
changed the files; nowhere does it require me to say who I am. "This
file was changed on 11/22/33."
In any event, I don't think your unusual interpretation of the GPL has
any bearing on the DFSG or the usefulness of the dissident test. "The
GPL might be argued to mean this, so the DFSG must allow it--just in
case" is crazy.
> Yes, a judgment call. I think that's my point. But with judgment comes
> discretion, not obstenence. Is d-l being true to the DFSG when it takes
> hardline no-compromise positions like the dissident test?
If a restriction ("no modification", "send me your firstborn", "state your
name and show your papers") inhibits freedom enough to render a license
non-free, then there is no room for "compromise". Compromise has its place,
but compromising principles is not one of them.
I find it somewhat curious that people throw around the word "compromise"
in the context of the software freedoms as if it's actually desirable--"we
should compromise, give up our principles and our freedoms in order to
have more stuff in Debian!" (Pardon the exaggeration; I have in mind
the attitudes of some others, not you.)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is this license DFSG free?
On Wednesday 15 June 2005 07:41 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 03:18:39PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > In both cases, the Courts have said yes, it is text book descrimination. > > A group of people is being treated differently than others. However, the > > Court says that while it is descrimination, it is not prohibited > > descrimination. The law itself is facially neutral and is not intended to > > descriminate against anyone, even though it ends up having a > > disproportional result upon certain groups. It is a question of intent. > > Although I don't know the full rationale behind this, I don't think this > is a useful approach for free software, because 1: we never know the intent > of the person using/drafting the license (people are not obliged to tell us > their ulterior motives), and 2: we are, in fact, interested in the real > effects licenses have on users and free software, not just the effects that > were intended. A license that ends up being onerous in practice is > non-free; the good intentions of the drafter are irrelevant. > > That said, it's usually a bit of a leap to call "discrimination" on a > license clause, since on one hand, there's usually some underlying freedom > that the person actually has in mind; and on the other hand, every > restriction imaginable can be phrased as "discrimination". The "chinese > dissident" test is useful, but "freedom to use software without identifying > yourself to a third party" underlies it; the "dissident" case is just one > example of *why* that's important. Ah, but here is the central point of contention with regards to identification and mandatory contribution. The crazy "Base Public License" makes no restriction on 'use' nor does it require identification for use. In fact, it doesn't even require identification when you modify, only when you seek to distribute that modification. Given that we are all concerned about copyrights and having proof that the code is free and not ripped off from SCO or whoever, identification seems to be a worthy goal of free software, which must be balanced against certain privacy concerns. All of this leads me to believe that the dissident test, while interesting, covers way too much territory and excludes licenses that should be considered free. To which I will reiterate that I read the GPL requiring attribution with modification... Mr. Suffield's statement that FSF says otherwise not withstanding [1]. > > worth asking, is the descrimination intentional? For sake of argument, > > consider the following outragenous example: doesn't the GPL descriminate > > against people who want to distribute modified code without providing the > > source code? > > Yep. That's not outrageous. > > It's a judgement call: is the effective discrimination balanced by its > practical effect on free software? In the case of the GPL, at least, the > answer has been "yes". Some people say, "but the DFSG doesn't have a > subclause explicitly allowing such a judgement call!", but those people > are just pretending the DFSG are something other than Guidelines. Yes, a judgment call. I think that's my point. But with judgment comes discretion, not obstenence. Is d-l being true to the DFSG when it takes hardline no-compromise positions like the dissident test? -Sean [1] The FSF, as the holders of copyrights to a number of GPL'ed programs, can certainly make claims about terms with regards to those contracts. However, its interpretation of the terms outside of those applications is irrelevant in court. What matters is the intent of those entering into the contract. -- Sean Kellogg 2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org] w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: Trademark question
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:40:12PM +0200, nodata wrote: > Probably an easy one.. > > SYBASE, INC. TRADEMARKS > (Effective March 22, 2004) > > APT Workbench(tm) > APT-Build(tm) <<< problem? I can't imagine that we would care, and they certainly don't have any basis for claim against us. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MPlayer revisited
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 03:14:34AM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:51:43AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 03:25:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > > Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I surely hope we're not at the point where constructive dialog has > > > > become impossible. I ask all of you to judge my words on their merit > > > > and not past statements made by other people. > > > > > > I think we're not, but I don't know whether either mplayer > > > developers or debian developers can convince a ftpmaster > > > (which is where this tab stops) about this issue, or we > > > have to wait for a legal brain to comment. > > > > Specifically, it doesn't help that mplayer developers have pretty much > > run their credibility into the ground by now. > > > > After countless rounds of "It's free now!" "Here's six more blatant > > abuses, three of which you already knew about [references]" "Fuck > > off", I'm not overly surprised that people are disinclined to believe > > them. > > Ever since I restarted this discussion in March 2004[1] all the issues > raised by people on this list have been addressed by me. If some are > still outstanding, please point them out. Personally, I can't really say that I care about mplayer, I can just see why people would be disinclined to deal with it after all that nonsense. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Is this license DFSG free?
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 03:18:39PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: > In both cases, the Courts have said yes, it is text book descrimination. A > group of people is being treated differently than others. However, the Court > says that while it is descrimination, it is not prohibited descrimination. > The law itself is facially neutral and is not intended to descriminate > against anyone, even though it ends up having a disproportional result upon > certain groups. It is a question of intent. Although I don't know the full rationale behind this, I don't think this is a useful approach for free software, because 1: we never know the intent of the person using/drafting the license (people are not obliged to tell us their ulterior motives), and 2: we are, in fact, interested in the real effects licenses have on users and free software, not just the effects that were intended. A license that ends up being onerous in practice is non-free; the good intentions of the drafter are irrelevant. That said, it's usually a bit of a leap to call "discrimination" on a license clause, since on one hand, there's usually some underlying freedom that the person actually has in mind; and on the other hand, every restriction imaginable can be phrased as "discrimination". The "chinese dissident" test is useful, but "freedom to use software without identifying yourself to a third party" underlies it; the "dissident" case is just one example of *why* that's important. > worth asking, is the descrimination intentional? For sake of argument, > consider the following outragenous example: doesn't the GPL descriminate > against people who want to distribute modified code without providing the > source code? Yep. That's not outrageous. It's a judgement call: is the effective discrimination balanced by its practical effect on free software? In the case of the GPL, at least, the answer has been "yes". Some people say, "but the DFSG doesn't have a subclause explicitly allowing such a judgement call!", but those people are just pretending the DFSG are something other than Guidelines. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Trademark question
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, nodata wrote: > http://www.sybase.com/detail?id=1011207 The only registered trademark they have on apt-something is on APT-FORMS which is now dead. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=fter6b.5.94 Don Armstrong -- Miracles had become relative common-places since the advent of entheogens; it now took very unusual circumstances to attract public attention to sightings of supernatural entities. The latest miracle had raised the ante on the supernatural: the Virgin Mary had manifested herself to two children, a dog, and a Public Telepresence Point. -- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p228 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:51:43AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 03:25:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I surely hope we're not at the point where constructive dialog has > > > become impossible. I ask all of you to judge my words on their merit > > > and not past statements made by other people. > > > > I think we're not, but I don't know whether either mplayer > > developers or debian developers can convince a ftpmaster > > (which is where this tab stops) about this issue, or we > > have to wait for a legal brain to comment. > > Specifically, it doesn't help that mplayer developers have pretty much > run their credibility into the ground by now. > > After countless rounds of "It's free now!" "Here's six more blatant > abuses, three of which you already knew about [references]" "Fuck > off", I'm not overly surprised that people are disinclined to believe > them. Ever since I restarted this discussion in March 2004[1] all the issues raised by people on this list have been addressed by me. If some are still outstanding, please point them out. > Unfortunately we don't have a good solution to the problem of dealing > with a package where upstream are untrustworthy lying bastards. I'm part of upstream. I have neither lied to nor insulted anyone here. Whether I am trustworthy or not is for others to decide, but all the facts I have presented can easily be verified. Please don't let us degenerate to name-calling and keep the discussion as civil as it has been up to this point. Thanks. Diego [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00235.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is this license DFSG free?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >In both cases, the Courts have said yes, it is text book descrimination. A >group of people is being treated differently than others. However, the Court >says that while it is descrimination, it is not prohibited descrimination. >The law itself is facially neutral and is not intended to descriminate >against anyone, even though it ends up having a disproportional result upon >certain groups. It is a question of intent. This looks like a much better rationale than the one I tried to express. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is this license DFSG free?
On Wednesday 15 June 2005 01:43 pm, David Starner wrote: > > It is discrimination only if it relates to an intrinsic quality of an > > individual or group, like "you cannot use this software if you are > > black" or "you cannot use this software if you are the military". > > But not "you cannot use this software if you're Christian", since > that's clearly not an intrinsic quality? What about "you cannot use > this software if you aren't in North or South America"? There's a lot > of hoops we could ask people to jump through, but that doesn't make it > free. > > (BTW, being a military is not an intrinsic quality. Militaries become > governments or terrorists or resistance groups all the time.) I've been doing a lot of thinking about the issues of contribution and discrimination, and it occures to me that the issues d-l seems to be grappeling are not dissimilar to issues surrounding U.S. Supreme Court 14th Amendment jurisprudence. For those non-U.S. folks, the 14th contains the equal protection clause, on which most of the U.S. non-descrimination laws are based. The issue that often confronts the court is what exactly constitutes descrimination, with the most important issue being one of intetionality. For example: if Congress passes a law instructing big polution spewing plants to be built on property with the lowest land-value, then that same law is going to put a lot of plants in areas where poor people live. Does the law descriminate against poor people? What if a law says that using a controlled substance is illegal, but a religion considers the drug to be an important part of their faith, does the law descriminate against that religion? In both cases, the Courts have said yes, it is text book descrimination. A group of people is being treated differently than others. However, the Court says that while it is descrimination, it is not prohibited descrimination. The law itself is facially neutral and is not intended to descriminate against anyone, even though it ends up having a disproportional result upon certain groups. It is a question of intent. So, what does this have to do with Debian? Well, DFSG #5 and #6 have been cited as backing the Dissident Test and as rendering manditory contribution clauses as non-free. The dissident arguably is being descriminated against, but I would wonder if the descrimination is the kind the DFSG is really worried about... not to make the DFSG the U.S. Constitution, but I think its worth asking, is the descrimination intentional? For sake of argument, consider the following outragenous example: doesn't the GPL descriminate against people who want to distribute modified code without providing the source code? Sure seems to me that the BSD doesn't descriminate against such people... but then again, the BSD descriminates against those who want the license to force them to distribute the modified source. But I don't think the DFSG is all too concerned with such things... where it would be very concerned with language prohibiting use of code by left-handed people. Just some thoughts on the topic, Sean -- Sean Kellogg 2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org] w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: Is this license DFSG free?
> It is discrimination only if it relates to an intrinsic quality of an > individual or group, like "you cannot use this software if you are > black" or "you cannot use this software if you are the military". But not "you cannot use this software if you're Christian", since that's clearly not an intrinsic quality? What about "you cannot use this software if you aren't in North or South America"? There's a lot of hoops we could ask people to jump through, but that doesn't make it free. (BTW, being a military is not an intrinsic quality. Militaries become governments or terrorists or resistance groups all the time.)
license question about linux drivers
Hi, I would like to know under which license your opensource hpt linux drivers are distributed. Also, could you please include a LICENSE file in the downloadable archives so the license is made clear? thanks in advance, filippo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: bacula trademark
Bastian Blank wrote: >Hi Jose. > >Please clearify under which rules the bacula trademark is used in >Debian. > >The Documentation stats: >| Bacula is a registered trademark of Kern Sibbald and John Walker. >| We have trademarked the Bacula name to ensure that any variant >| of Bacula will be exactly compatible with the program that we have >| released. The use of the name Bacula is restricted to software systems >| that agree exactly with the program presented here > >If I'm correct, the package already have a different behavior than >upstream, which describes the tool "console-gnome" not >"bacula-console-gnome". > > This was done so as to avoid name conflicts. I was advised to use the "bacula-" namespace to disambiguate naming. As long as it is documented in README.Debian, this shouldn't be that much of a problem? I am completely open to any other suggestions, though. Thank you for the feedback. Best regards, J.L. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
> with a package where upstream are untrustworthy lying bastards. It's sad to see that discussion is returning to those levels, oh well.. -- Dariush Pietrzak, Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294 05E0 BCC7 02C4 75CC 50D9 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Trademark question
Probably an easy one.. SYBASE, INC. TRADEMARKS (Effective March 22, 2004) APT Workbench(tm) APT-Build(tm) <<< problem? APT-Edit(tm) APT-Execute(tm) APT-Translator(tm) APT-Library(tm) http://www.sybase.com/detail?id=1011207 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is this license DFSG free?
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 07:17:38PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: > On Saturday 11 June 2005 05:10 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote: > > Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Sean Kellogg wrote: > > >> "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating > > >> that you changed the files and the date of any change." Doesn't this > > >> violate the Dissident test and cause troubles for our poor totalitarian > > >> state citizen? > > > > > > No, because the following statement is allowed by the GPL, and does not > > > reveal the identity of the dissident: > > > > > > "This file was changed on December 10, 2004." > > > > Whether that's allowed by the GPL depends on the interpretation of the > > phrase "stating that you changed the files". > > Agreed. > > The setence is ambigous if broken down sufficiently. However, if the > Anthony's language is sufficient, it strikes me that the GPL is way too > verbose. All you would need the GPL to say to require such a limited > changelog would be "provide a notice of the date of any change" without > reference to "you." It is interesting the GPL-FAQ has nothing to say about > the topic. We have a standing opinion from the FSF that the information contained in a cvs log is sufficient for this purpose, and the identity of the person making the change need not be disclosed. The GPL does lie right on the line, but it lies on the 'safe' line. From a certain perspective, you could say that the GPL is the delimiting mark (at least, we've never found anything more restrictive than the GPL in this respect which was still free, to my knowledge - that doesn't mean it *can't* exist, but it probably doesn't). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MPlayer revisited
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 03:25:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I surely hope we're not at the point where constructive dialog has > > become impossible. I ask all of you to judge my words on their merit > > and not past statements made by other people. > > I think we're not, but I don't know whether either mplayer > developers or debian developers can convince a ftpmaster > (which is where this tab stops) about this issue, or we > have to wait for a legal brain to comment. Specifically, it doesn't help that mplayer developers have pretty much run their credibility into the ground by now. After countless rounds of "It's free now!" "Here's six more blatant abuses, three of which you already knew about [references]" "Fuck off", I'm not overly surprised that people are disinclined to believe them. Unfortunately we don't have a good solution to the problem of dealing with a package where upstream are untrustworthy lying bastards. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: bacula trademark
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Documentation stats: > | We have trademarked the Bacula name to ensure that any variant > | of Bacula will be exactly compatible with the program that we have > | released. The use of the name Bacula is restricted to software systems > | that agree exactly with the program presented here I suspect that asserts a claim beyond that granted by a trademark, but I am not a lawyer. There also looks like lawyerbombs in "agree exactly" and "exactly compatible". -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: quake2 and german youth protection law
* Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [14/06/05, 19:20:30]: > * Kai Blin: > > > * Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [14/06/05, 13:57:02]: > > > >> But this doesn't matter at all. Our guardians became frustrated with > >> the necessity to index both the German translation and the original, > >> so they installed a mandatory rating system for computer games > >> (similar to movies in Germany and other countries). The main problem > >> isn't that quake2 is a violent game, but that it's a game. "M-x > >> tetris RET" has the same problem. > > > > No, it doesn't. The "or similar games" goes both ways. > > Are you sure? Is this some kind of regulations adopted by the Länder? > Approval by analogy is not part of JuschG. Pretty sure. I don't have my old paperwork at hand. It might have been on the USK website. Cheers, Kai -- Kai Blin aka. nowhere (blingmx.net), WorldForge Project Web: http://www.worldforge.org/ Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low. -- Wallace Sayre -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
