date:20050722

Re: Question about license compatibility

2005-07-22 Thread Sean Kellogg

On Thursday 21 July 2005 04:49 pm, Gerasimos Melissaratos wrote:
 X-Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs-MailScanner: Found to be clean
 X-MailScanner-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 I'd like to create a package for ng-spice, which seems to be governed by
 two licenses, which I include herein. In first reading I cannot see any
 real discrepancies, but of course IANAL. Pls tell me if any of them is
 compatible with DFSG.

I'm surprised no one has responded to this yet...  so I guess I'll get the 
ball rolling.  Its my opinion that both licenses are non-free, for reasonably 
well established and non-controversial reasons.

License 1 contains a limitation on use (educational, research and non-profit 
purposes, without fee) which is a violation of DFSG #6.  License 2 is less 
obvious, but I personally believe that a provision that forbids charging a 
fee for distribution is non-free, or at least bad policy.  Certainly having a 
package that prohibits charging for distribution would prevent it from being 
on a Debian CD sold by one of the vendors.  Based on the DFSG I'd have to 
point to #1 and #6...  but both are kind of stretches.

Anyone else have thoughts?

-- 
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate  Professional Student Senate Treasurer
UW Service  Activities Committee Interim Chair 
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: Password disclosure?

2005-07-22 Thread Free Ekanayaka

|--== Francesco Poli writes:

FP On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:17:29 +0100 Free Ekanayaka wrote:
FP [...]
FP | zynaddsubfx is also a must
FP [...]
FP | The licence is a bit strange, I know, but it is still the
FP | softsynth with the best sounds that come out of the box.

FP Well, what's strange with the GNU GPL v2?
FP
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/z/zynaddsubfx/zynaddsubfx_2.2.1-2/zynaddsubfx.copyright

From http://zynaddsubfx.sourceforge.net/:

Please don't use this program to make music that is against God and
Jesus Christ. Realize that the only way to the Salvation is Jesus
Christ. Please don't lose this chance and don't make others to lose
it!

FP Well, that's a Please don't do this: it's a kind *request*, not a
FP legally binding *requirement*.
FP Upstream authors seem to be Christian fundamentalists or something like
FP that.
FP At least, that's what appears from the notice you quoted...
FP They probably would *not* be pleased, if, say, Marilyn Manson used
FP zynaddsubfx in his artistical production; but they (seem to) want their
FP software to be free, so they do not discriminate against any field of
FP endeavor: they just advice against uses they feel as unethical.

FP I fail to see anything non-free or troublesome in all this.

Yes, I think you're right. I just reported what I thought was the
issue here... I don't know what Paul Naska (author) would do in case
his program were used by Marilyn Manson (he could even change the
license), but that's to the case now.

Cheers,

Free

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Password disclosure?

2005-07-22 Thread Glenn Maynard

On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 08:02:11AM +0100, Free Ekanayaka wrote:
 |--== Francesco Poli writes:
   FP I fail to see anything non-free or troublesome in all this.
 
 Yes, I  think you're right.   I just  reported what I  thought was the
 issue here...  I don't know what Paul  Naska (author) would do in case
 his program   were used by Marilyn Manson   (he could even  change the
 license), but that's to the case now.

Personally, I think if God cares, he'd be pleased to see Manson exercising
his freedom by making music disparaging Him.  (And I agree with Francesco.)

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Website Feedback

2005-07-22 Thread Rob Collyer

Dear Sirs, 

My name is Rob Collyer, and I'm the owner of webforumz.com.

I wanted to let you know that I am interested in exchanging links with 
you.

Webforumz.com has a Google Page rank (PR) of 6 and I am sure your site 
will benefit from exchanging links with us.

We have just added a new resource directory and we would place your 
link there.

Our link details:-

URL: http://www.webforumz.com
Link Title:- Free SEO, Design and development advice
Description:  Webforumz.com offers free SEO help, Web design and 
development advice and gives free website critiques to it's members.

Please drop me an email if you would like to swap links letting me know 
the link title and description of the link you require.

Best regards,

Rob Collyer
webforumz.com

http://www.webforumz.com/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

PS: It would be great if you linked to our site. Just drop me a line.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question about license compatibility

2005-07-22 Thread Matthew Garrett

Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 License 1 contains a limitation on use (educational, research and non-profit 
 purposes, without fee) which is a violation of DFSG #6.  License 2 is less 
 obvious, but I personally believe that a provision that forbids charging a 
 fee for distribution is non-free, or at least bad policy.  Certainly having a 
 package that prohibits charging for distribution would prevent it from being 
 on a Debian CD sold by one of the vendors.  Based on the DFSG I'd have to 
 point to #1 and #6...  but both are kind of stretches.

That aspect of license 2 isn't a problem - the DFSG don't require that
people be able to charge for an item of software, merely the aggregate
work.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: On the definition of source

2005-07-22 Thread Michael K. Edwards

On 7/21/05, Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I think you mean:
 
   The story that is circulated now about the tweaking of the S-box is
   that it was to make DES more resistant to differential cryptanalysis,
   which was unknown at the time.

I tend to give Bruce Schneier a certain amount of credence, although I
recognize that he is not a historian.  It is well documented that the
NSA and at least some of the IBM researchers who contributed to the
DES design were cognizant of the technique now known as differential
cryptanalysis prior to the finalization of the DES S-boxes, and that
the S-boxes are locally (and very nearly globally) optimal with
respect to d-c attack.

 Once you allow systems to exist with poor disclosure of the construction
 process of their internals, you have opened up a back door wide enough
 to drive a thousand exploits through.

I don't pretend to do a security (or even maintainability) audit of
all the code that passes through my hands.  I frequently rely on the
good faith (and continued existence) of upstream when choosing
software products on and with which to build my own work.

Yes, I do some due diligence; where it seems worthwhile, I spot-check
the code quality, the documentation completeness, and the history of
the individuals and organizations; and where it really matters, I make
some attempt to evaluate the test coverage and the computational
complexity of core algorithms.  Very, very few open source projects
(and even fewer of the closed-source projects whose internals I've
seen) impress me on all of the above scores; but you've got to have
some tools to work with if you expect to build big things on a small
budget.

 If you are aware that the providers of the system have an agenda, then
 it actually makes sense to work *harder* on the full disclosure of all
 components necessary to reconstruct angle than you would otherwise.

Everybody's got an agenda.  If you're confident that you understand
what that agenda is, then you can hedge intelligently against it. 
Openness is good, but sometimes it reveals not-so-pretty things, and
you need to think about whether a shortcut somebody admits to have
taken is repugnant or merely regrettable.

 (Yes, I *am* in the business of producing stuff that you can only
 reproduce part of from the design data.)

Who isn't?  :-)

Cheers,
- Michael

EUPL draft

2005-07-22 Thread Ales Cepek

Greetings,

I searched archive of the debian-legal list and it seems that the
proposed European Union Public License (EUPL) has not been discussed
here yet.

As this is clearly an important subject (and I am sure that it is
closely related to the software patents agenda), I would like to ask,
if anybody here can say that the EUPL draft would be compatible with
the Debian Social Contract.

Ales Cepek
FFII.cz

Re: Question about license compatibility

2005-07-22 Thread Sean Kellogg

On Friday 22 July 2005 03:28 am, Matthew Garrett wrote:
 Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  License 1 contains a limitation on use (educational, research and
  non-profit purposes, without fee) which is a violation of DFSG #6. 
  License 2 is less obvious, but I personally believe that a provision that
  forbids charging a fee for distribution is non-free, or at least bad
  policy.  Certainly having a package that prohibits charging for
  distribution would prevent it from being on a Debian CD sold by one of
  the vendors.  Based on the DFSG I'd have to point to #1 and #6...  but
  both are kind of stretches.

 That aspect of license 2 isn't a problem - the DFSG don't require that
 people be able to charge for an item of software, merely the aggregate
 work.

Why is that the case?  The license says:

The licensee agrees not to charge for the University of California code
itself. The licensee may, however, charge for additions, extensions, or 
support.

If the license said You cannot charge for this code, nor can you charge for 
it in agregate with other applications outside of this license I might 
suggest the second part is simply unenforcable.  But even if it were 
enforcable, how does selling code in agregate with other code not fall within 
the bar against charging for the code itself?  The CD has value because of 
the code, I am charging for the CD, part of why customers are willing to pay 
for the CD is the value of the code...  strikes me as I am, agregate or not, 
charging for the code.

Additionally, how is this not a discrimination on use prohibited under DFSG 
#6?  One of the uses of software is to package, modify, and resell.  If I 
cannot do that because of the license, isn't that a use descrimination?

-Sean

-- 
Sean Kellogg
3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law
Graduate  Professional Student Senate Treasurer
UW Service  Activities Committee Interim Chair 
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: EUPL draft

2005-07-22 Thread Sam Morris


Ales Cepek wrote:

I searched archive of the debian-legal list and it seems that the
proposed European Union Public License (EUPL) has not been discussed
here yet.

As this is clearly an important subject (and I am sure that it is
closely related to the software patents agenda), I would like to ask,
if anybody here can say that the EUPL draft would be compatible with
the Debian Social Contract.

Ales Cepek
FFII.cz


There's a PDFs are available at 
http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/2623/5585#eupl. Unfortunately, 
DRM in the file prevents ps2ascii from working its magic:


  This file requires a password for access.
  Error: /invalidfileaccess in pdf_process_Encrypt

An encouraging start. ;)

--
Sam Morris
http://robots.org.uk/

PGP key id 5EA01078
3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B  C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: EUPL draft

2005-07-22 Thread Ivo Danihelka

On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:35 +0200, Ales Cepek wrote:
 I would like to ask,
 if anybody here can say that the EUPL draft would be compatible with
 the Debian Social Contract.

Good question. The EUPL draft is available at
http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/2623/5585#eupl

Now is time to propose changes.
-- 
Ivo Danihelka


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: EUPL draft

2005-07-22 Thread Rich Walker

Ivo Danihelka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:35 +0200, Ales Cepek wrote:
 I would like to ask,
 if anybody here can say that the EUPL draft would be compatible with
 the Debian Social Contract.

 Good question. The EUPL draft is available at
 http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/2623/5585#eupl

 Now is time to propose changes.

Here is the text of the license.

I have run it through pdftotext, and then formatted for email reading.

Page breaks have been retained.

EUPL v.01-EN

European Union Public Licence
V.01
EUPL © the European Community 2005

This European Union Public Licence (the EUPL) applies to the Work or
Software (as defined below) which is provided under the terms of this
Licence. Any use of the Work, other than as authorised under this
Licence is prohibited (to the extent such use is covered by a right of
the copyright holder of the Work). The Original Work is provided under
the terms of this Licence when the Licensor (as defined below) has
placed the following notice immediately following the copyright notice
for the Original Work: Licensed under the EUPL v.01 or has expressed by
any other mean his willingness to license under the EUPL.

1. Definitions
In this Licence, the following terms have the following meaning: 

The Licence: this Licence. 

The Original Work or the Software: the software distributed and/or
communicated by the Licensor under this Licence, available as Source
Code and also as Executable Code as the case may be. 

Derivative Works: the works or software that could be created by the
Licensee, based upon the Original Work or modifications thereof. This
Licence does not define the extent of modification or dependence on the
Original Work required in order to classify a work as a Derivative Work;
this extent is determined by copyright law applicable in the country
mentioned in article 15. 

The Work: the Original Work and/or its Derivative Works. 

The Source Code: the human-readable form of the Work which is required
in order to make modifications to it. 

The Executable Code: any code which has generally been compiled and
which is meant to be interpreted by a computer as a program.

The Licensor: the physical or legal person that distributes and/or
communicates the Work under the Licence.

Contributor(s): any physical or legal person who modifies the Work under
the Licence, or otherwise contributes to the creation of a Derivative
Work. 

The Licensee or You: any physical or legal person who makes any usage
of the Software under the terms of the Licence.  

page 1 of 6

-

© European Community 2005


EUPL v.01-EN

-

Distribution and/or Communication: any act of selling, giving, lending,
renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making
available, on-line or off-line, copies of the Work at the disposal of
any other physical or legal person.

2. Scope of the rights granted by the Licence
The Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free,
non-exclusive, sub-licensable licence to do the following, for the
duration of copyright vested in the Original Work: 

use the Work in any circumstance and for all usage, 

reproduce the Work, 

modify the Original Work, and make Derivative Works based upon the Work,

communicate to the public, including the right to make available or
display the Work or copies thereof to the public and perform publicly,
as the case may be, the Work,

distribute the Work or copies thereof,

lend and rent the Work or copies thereof, 

sub-license rights in the Work or copies thereof.

Those rights can be exercised on any media, supports and formats,
whether now known or later invented, as far as the applicable law
permits so. In the countries where moral rights apply, the Licensor
waives his right to exercise his moral right to the extent allowed by
law in order to make effective the licence of the economic rights here
above listed.

3. Communication of the Source Code
The Licensor may provide the Work either in its Source Code form, or as
Executable Code. If the Work is provided as Executable Code, the
Licensor provides in addition a machine-readable copy of the Source Code
of the Work along with each copy of the Work that the Licensor
distributes or indicates, in a notice following the copyright notice
attached to the Work, a repository where the Source Code is easily and
freely accessible for as long as the Licensor continues to distribute
and/or communicate the Work.

4. Limitations to copyright
Nothing in this Licence is intended to deprive the Licensee of the
benefits from any exception or limitation to the exclusive rights of the
rights owners in the Original Work or Software, of the exhaustion of
those rights or of other applicable limitations thereto.

© European Community 2005

page 2 of 6


EUPL v.01-EN

5. Obligations of the Licensee
The grant of the rights mentioned above is subject to some restrictions
and obligations imposed on the Licensee. Those obligations are the
following:

Re: EUPL draft

2005-07-22 Thread Humberto Massa Guimarães

 Derivative Works: the works or software that could be created by
 the Licensee, based upon the Original Work or modifications
 thereof. This Licence does not define the extent of modification
 or dependence on the Original Work required in order to classify a
 work as a Derivative Work; this extent is determined by copyright
 law applicable in the country mentioned in article 15. 

This definition should be left to the copyright law.

 Distribution and/or Communication: any act of selling, giving,
 lending, renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or
 otherwise making available, on-line or off-line, copies of the
 Work at the disposal of any other physical or legal person.

This appears to include public performance (eg, using the software
to drive a website), which will cause problems and be non-free IMHO.

 5. Obligations of the Licensee The grant of the rights mentioned
 above is subject to some restrictions and obligations imposed on
 the Licensee. Those obligations are the following: 
 
...
 Provision of Source Code: When distributing and/or communicating
 copies of the Work, the Licensee will provide a machine-readable
 copy of the Source Code or indicates a website where this Source
 will be easily and freely available for as long as the Licensee
 continues to distribute and/or communicate the Work.

This is the if you drive a website using this, then you have to
distribute the source, when combined with #1. non-free IMHO.

 10. Acceptance of the Licence The provisions of this Licence can
 be accepted by clicking on an icon I agree placed under the
 bottom of a window displaying the text of this Licence or by
 affirming consent in any other similar way, in accordance with
 rules of applicable law. Clicking on that icon indicates your
 clear and irrevocable acceptance of this Licence and all of its
 terms and conditions. Similarly, the creation by You of a
 Derivative Work or the Distribution and/or Communication by You of
 the Work or copies thereof indicates your clear and irrevocable
 acceptance of this Licence and all of its terms and conditions.

This, together with the preamble's any use of this work, may be
non-free.

 11. Information to the public
 
 In case of any Distribution and/or Communication of the Work by
 You (for example, by offering to download the Work from a website)
 the distribution channel or media (for example, the website) must
 provide the following information to the public: 
 
 your name, as new Licensor providing the Work, 
 
 your geographic and electronic address, 

Whoa... dissident test alert!

 where the Licensor is registered in a trade or similar public
 register,
 
 the trade register in which the Licensor is entered and his
 registration number, 
 
 the different technical steps to follow to conclude the Licence,
 prior to the Distribution and/or the Communication of the Work,

what is to conclude the License?

 where the Licence contract will be accessible, 
 
 the languages which can be used for the conclusion of the Licence.
 
 The Licence terms provided to the Licensee must be made available
 in a way that allows him to store and reproduce them.
 

 14. Jurisdiction Any litigation resulting from the interpretation
 of this license, arising between the European Commission, as a
 Licensor, and any Licensee, will be subject to the jurisdiction of
 the European Court of Justice, as laid down in article 238 of the
 Treaty establishing the European Community. Any litigation arising
 between parties other than the European Commission, and resulting
 from the interpretation of this license, will be subject to the
 exclusive jurisdiction of the competent court:

Whoa... discrimination: differentiates the EC amongst all licensors.

 
  · where the Licensor resides or conducts its primary business, if
  Licensor resides or conducts its primary business inside the
  European Union;
 
  · where the Licensee resides or conducts its primary business if
  Licensor resides or conducts its primary business outside the
  European Union; 
 
 · where the Licensor resides or conducts its primary business, if
 both the Licensor and the Licensee reside or conduct their primary
 business outside the European Union.

Discrimination: this is best left to each copyright law.

 
 15. Applicable Law This License shall be governed by the law of
 the European Union country where the Licensor resides or has his
 registered office. This License shall be governed by the Belgian
 Law if a litigation arises between the European Commission, as a
 Licensor, and any Licensee. This License shall also be governed by
 the Belgian Law if the Licensor has no residence or registered
 office inside a European Union country.

Ditto.

--
HTH,
Massa


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question about license compatibility

2005-07-22 Thread Anthony W. Youngman

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sean Kellogg 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes

On Friday 22 July 2005 03:28 am, Matthew Garrett wrote:

Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 License 1 contains a limitation on use (educational, research and
 non-profit purposes, without fee) which is a violation of DFSG #6.
 License 2 is less obvious, but I personally believe that a provision that
 forbids charging a fee for distribution is non-free, or at least bad
 policy.  Certainly having a package that prohibits charging for
 distribution would prevent it from being on a Debian CD sold by one of
 the vendors.  Based on the DFSG I'd have to point to #1 and #6...  but
 both are kind of stretches.

That aspect of license 2 isn't a problem - the DFSG don't require that
people be able to charge for an item of software, merely the aggregate
work.


Why is that the case?  The license says:

The licensee agrees not to charge for the University of California code
itself. The licensee may, however, charge for additions, extensions, or
support.


Actually, doesn't the GPL itself contain exactly the same restriction, 
just worded a bit differently?


The GPL forbids charging for the code itself. It DOES permit charging 
(as much as you can get away with) for the effort of packaging it. I'd 
class packaging as support, therefore it could be included on a Debian 
CD because you're not charging for the code.


Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Public Domain and Packaging

2005-07-22 Thread Anthony W. Youngman

In message 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian M. 
Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes

There is no such thing as software that isn't copyrighted.  All original
expression that is fixed in a tangible form is immediately copyrighted (at
least, that's the U.S. rule).  There is still lots of debate as to whether it
is possible to disclaim that copyright...  but there is no question that it
is, at the moment of creation, copyrighted.


False.  You, as a lawyer-to-be, should know better than to be imprecise.
U.S. Government software is not copyrighted, and cannot be so,
excepting, of course, the United States Postal Service, which is granted
an exception under 19 U.S.C.


I gather that's false too :-)

The rule, afaict (and I'm not an American), is that copyright *cannot* 
*be* *enforced*, which is not the same thing at all ...


Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Public Domain and Packaging

2005-07-22 Thread Adam McKenna

On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:05:09PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
 The rule, afaict (and I'm not an American), is that copyright *cannot* 
 *be* *enforced*, which is not the same thing at all ...

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#piu

--Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Question about license compatibility

2005-07-22 Thread Florian Weimer

* Anthony W. Youngman:

 Actually, doesn't the GPL itself contain exactly the same restriction, 
 just worded a bit differently?

 The GPL forbids charging for the code itself.

Only for the source code which you must make available when you
distribute binaries, you may not charge for anything but your actual
costs to create and ship the copy.

You can charge what you want for plain source code, binaries, or a
combination of source code and binaries on the same distribution
medium.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

37 matches

Mail list logo