Choice-of-venue and forking
As choice-of-venus was recently dicussed heavily, and mainly costs of directly licensors discussed, I wanted to ask the more knowing ones what effects this will have in the most jurisdictions when forking code with such a clause in the license. If neighter the licensee nor the licensor are any more in the jurisdiction choosen by the clause, what will happen? Will simply the normal rules apply, or will both have to travel to the remote place, will that even be able to open an case? Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choice-of-venue and forking
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 12:11:30PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: As choice-of-venus was recently dicussed heavily, and mainly costs of directly licensors discussed, I wanted to ask the more knowing ones what effects this will have in the most jurisdictions when forking code with such a clause in the license. If neighter the licensee nor the licensor are any more in the jurisdiction choosen by the clause, what will happen? Will simply the normal rules apply, or will both have to travel to the remote place, will that even be able to open an case? It seems to me that the answer depends on whether the original license allows derivers to distribute their own code under a modified license (i.e., with the choice of venue clause changed to something more appropriate). If it does, then this isn't a problem; you just pick a more suitable venue to apply to your portion of the work. If it doesn't, then you can always dual-license your work, but I guess that still leaves open the possibility that your licensee will choose to take you to court under the terms of the *original* license instead of your modified license... -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
celestia and JPL license
Hi Some time ago I adopted the celestia package. The package contains textures which seem not to be DFSG free. (see bug #174456). It looks like the main problem is the NASA's JPL license[1]. I have two options now: Either I replace those textures by DFSG-free ones, or I move the package to non-free. I'm trying to find suitable textures for the first option, but unfortunately, I don't understand what makes the JPL policy DSFG-nonfree :( I have to know this because I don't want to replace non-free textures with new textures which are non-free as well. Best regards Mathias Weyland [1] http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/index.cfm -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: celestia and JPL license
Scripsit Mathias Weyland [EMAIL PROTECTED] It looks like the main problem is the NASA's JPL license[1]. [1] http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/index.cfm Hm, wouldn't the material ostensibly under that license generally fall under the U.S. government work copyright exclusion? -- Henning Makholm Monarki, er ikke noget materielt ... Borger! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: celestia and JPL license
Mathias Weyland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some time ago I adopted the celestia package. The package contains textures which seem not to be DFSG free. (see bug #174456). It looks like the main problem is the NASA's JPL license[1]. I have two options now: Either I replace those textures by DFSG-free ones, or I move the package to non-free. I'm trying to find suitable textures for the first option, but unfortunately, I don't understand what makes the JPL policy DSFG-nonfree :( The policy looks different to the one on the bug log. It looks like the current one only discriminates against JPL/Caltech contractors. Hopefully they'll be agreeable to making that specific to only photos, exclude textures, or something. 1. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/index.cfm Hope that helps, -- 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: Choice-of-venue and forking
Scripsit Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wanted to ask the more knowing ones what effects this will have in the most jurisdictions when forking code with such a clause in the license. If neighter the licensee nor the licensor are any more in the jurisdiction choosen by the clause, what will happen? First, if both parties in a case agree to using a venue other than the one specified in the licence, it has no effect. (The parties, when agreeing, are always free to amend their earlier agreement at will). If they *don't* agree and one of the parties try to file suit in a non-specified forum, the defendant can argue to have the case thrown out of court, citing the choice-of-venue clause. In some jurisdictions the judge will have the possibility to overrule this objection if the defendant cannot demonstrate a legitimate interest in having the case moved (i.e., if the suit is filed in the defendant's home court, a request to move it halfway around the world may just be obstructionism). It is in general possible that the specified forum refuses to take the case if neither of the parties have a relevant connection to the country or state that sponsors the court. If that happens, the choice-of-venue clause will effectively be void (and then cannot be used by the defendant to block litigation in the default forum, unless the latter forum's rules are completely insane). -- Henning Makholm sh: line 1: fortune: command not found -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's what I have in mind: http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/licenses/cddl/summary.html It looks a comprehensive minute apart from repeated points, but some of the stock language needs a tune-up (Who cares whether the licence is DFSG-free? We package software not licences!) and you already plan to work on the presentation. I think the biggest improvements would be to replace message-id on the index with a format like local_part.MMDD.HH:MM (so henning.0909.14:51 is the first) and to use a dl instead of a ul for the first level. In general, I'm impressed and the idea could be used in a lot of places to avoid sending everyone to wade through tons of verbose mail. Will the mail-minute-maker scripts be released? Best wishes, -- 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: CDDL
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [MJ Ray wrote:] Restricting support deals for main could have awkward consequences for companies who supply debian-based services. This clause could have been worded differently (in the absence of other agreements... perhaps) but it wasn't. Please reconsider whether it discriminates against licensed support agents. Debian is not a legal entity. There are no warenty agent contracts. Most support services that exist for Debian that offer things like warenties do it only as an agent of themselves, so i don't see the problem. [...] I think you haven't understood the point. Imagine a Sun-initiated server control tool contains code contributed by ThinClients Ltd under CDDL, is packaged in debian and you are a ThinClients Support Agent for debian through some support agreement with ThinClients. As far as I can see, you could offer ThinClients Support Agent services for all of debian, apart from the control tool, more or less. How would that make sense? I'm not saying that Debian service agents would necessarily be affected if they ever exist. Please attribute my words to me in future. -- 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: celestia and JPL license
Mathias Weyland wrote: I don't understand what makes the JPL policy DSFG-nonfree :( I'm guessing 'By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees: ... 2. to use a credit line in connection with images.' is a restriction on modification (DFSG #3). If the pictures are a work by the US government, then the JPL does not have the authority to demand this[1]; the images would actually be public domain and therefore Free. The terms in the contract/license of the website don't hamper redistribution of the images, because (not being copyrighted) you don't need JPL's permission to copy them. [1] - http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#piu -- Lewis Jardine IANAL, IANADD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 11:20:51PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: Michael Are you saying these people are on record in believing that the GPL Michael works in the sense we are discussing -- forbidding the distribution, Michael on terms other than the GPL's, of code that uses a GPL library (or Michael other form of modular software component) through its published API? Michael Can you provide URLs or other citations to back this up? Especially Michael those that cite any actual law in support of their position? Actually, no. I was under the impression you were saying Moglen was the only one to consider that the GPL worked at all. I was apparently mistaken, and you were only referring to the linking problem. Regarding that, Lessig does support it, in either The future of Ideas or Free culture. Rosen is skeptical about the FSF's position and seems not to endorse it. AFAIK, MacGowan and Samuelson haven't voiced an opinion on the question. The other two (belgian law professors) are pretty mich convinced, mostly by my own article on the subject. The reasoning is pretty simple. As Sean said, it is based on the understanding that the GPL is a contract. As such, it has to be interpreted in the light of the parties intent. For those cases where the FSF is the licensor, the FSF's intent is clear and well known. When intent is unknown, we have to refer to common practice. That means that one has to refer to the perception specialists in the relevant field (in this case, free software developpers) understand things. Insofar as it is commonly held that the GPL requires that programs linking to GPL'ed libraries be licensed under the GPL, that requirement is to be considered part of the contract. I shall stress that this reasoning is held in belgian law, and should be applicable in most legal systems based on civil law. I will not voice an opinion regarding common law systems. Michael But no qualified source that I have yet found, other than those Michael directly affiliated with the FSF, seems to be willing to endorse the Michael dynamic linking ban any further than well, the FSF makes these Michael claims, and it's hard to tell what a court will think. I personally Michael don't think it's very hard to tell what a US court will think (at Michael least at the circuit court level and assuming competent lawyering) -- Michael it's pretty clear from cases like Lotus and Lexmark that attempts to Michael extend the copyright monopoly to forbid interoperation are frowned Michael upon. As far as I can tell (I'm not a programmer), the dynamic linking ban has very few to do with the Lexmark case for instance. Not being able to use shared libraries does not, AFAIK, stop you from making interoperable software, at worse it hinders pure integration, not interoperability. Let's not forget that in the Lexmark case, Lexmark was trying to stop another manufacturer from making ink cartidges for it's printers *at all*. The dynamic linking ban does not stop you from making programs using the libraries in the slightest. It only puts *one* condition on it. Quite a different case. And even if you don't use the library, you can still make a program interoperable with the target system, just write your own functions and what will you. And if that is too hard/expensive, then maybe your program would have been a derivative of the library after all... But again, I might be wrong on this. Michael It's particularly bad news when the legal monopoly is combined Michael with market dominance in a given niche -- and there are a number of Michael sectors in which the FSF and Microsoft have a near-total duopoly, and Michael where neither demonstrates any qualms about leveraging its advantages Michael to squeeze bit players out of neighboring niches. I'm not quite sure where you're going with your competition law references. There aren't that any areas I can think of in which I would say the FSF has significant market power. As to the OpenSSL case per se, it isn't clear enough for me to emit a judgement. -- Yorick Cool Chercheur au CRID Rempart de la Vierge, 5 B-5000 Namur Tel: + 32 (0)81 72 47 62 /+32 (0)81 51 37 75 Fax: + 32 (0)81 72 52 02 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
** Raul Miller :: On 9/9/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul, 90% of your questions (below) are rethoric. Given the context, I haven't a clue what that means. This could be anywhere from begging the question to a desire to focus on some useful 10% of my questions. No, 90% of the questions are is this eligible for copyright protection?. Assume every work eligible for copyright protection, for the sake of the argument, and for $DEITY's sake. AND we're talking ONLY about dynamic linking. AND, to boot, that those bits that end up in a compiled work by way of being in a .h file (for instance) are not eligible for copyright protection. This is even more confusing. assume every work eligible for copyright protection...are not eligible for copyright protection? In principle, I ought to be able to figure out what you're saying by looking at the grammar of your sentences, but in this case I can't. I thought that one was simple: 1. please assume every work mentioned in the argument (unless otherwise noted) eligible for copyright protection; 2. please assume we are talking (unless otherwise noted) about dynamic linking; and 3. please assume that those bits that end up in a compiled work by way of being in .h file or any other similar thing are not eligible for copyright protection (this is an explicit exception to #1 above). One of the confusing things is where you say by way of being in a .h file (for instance). As an instance of what? Yes. one nice example are text of non-trivial inlined functions. If I start by assuming the conclusion you want to draw is correct, I can work backwords and fit the pieces together so they make sense, but that's not the same thing as these pieces being a valid argument that your conclusion is correct. All the assumptions above create a simplified model, that we can refine later -- if we can come to any conclusion at all. In other words, let's just start with the conclusion we want to draw? Oh well, on to the questions: ** Raul Miller :: On 09 Sep 2005 17:52:00 +0200, Claus Färber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The argument, simplified, basically goes like this: 1. Program A is licensed under the GPL. = Debian can distribute A. Library M is licensed under the GPL. = Debian can distribute M. Program B is a derivative of A, which dynamically links against M. = Debian can distribute B. (Question: is B a derivative of M? For that matter is A a derivative of M? Is B a derivative of M? Is A a derivative of M? -- those are the million-dollar questions. I don't think so, because there is no intellectually-novel transformation of M that produces A or B. I'm trying to find an interpretation of this sentence that has some meaning and I'm clueless. As a general rule, all derivative works are produced by humans. As a general rule, when we talk about transformations we're talking about processes -- something outside the scope of copyright law (thought not outside the realm of human activity). Why is it outside the scope of copyright law? The copyright law itself defined a derivation as the result of said processes. 17USC enumerates some processes, and Brazilian Author's Rights acts defines them. What I'm not getting is how the presence or absence of some process which is outside the scope of copyright law has any bearing on the question of whether one work is a derivative work of some other work. The processes are not outside the scope of copyright law. [For now, I'm skipping sentences which seem to depend on this intellectually novel transformation sentence for their meaning.] Intellectualy novel transformation is the text of the code law that defines derivative work in Brasil. I suspect -- but I don't have the time right now to confirm -- that this text (which is already in one of my recent posts) is directly copied from the Geneva convention text. IOW, it's the letter of the law. for copyright protection?) 3. Library M is fully compatible to O. So programs B and C are actually identical. = Debian can and can't distribute B/C at the same time. = This can't be right. (M can be fully compatible with O without B being identical to C. And I've some other questions about the nature of B and C -- see above.) Imagine that B and C are actually the same program, and you'll see the argument. From my point of view, the technical features of a system (what gets linked against what, and what the system does, etc.) are not the deciding factors. They're just evidence about what the nature of the creative work under discussion. Evidence, in and of itself, does not decide the case. Evidence just paints a part of the picture. I fail to see the correlation of the paragraph above and the argument above it. In other words, B and C could actually be the same program where B is an
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
** David Nusinow :: If someone is going to file a lawsuit, someone has to pay for it. If the two sides live in different places, one of them has to travel no matter what, and thus pay for that expense. If we say that choice of venue clauses aren't Free, then the person bringing the suit will very likely have to travel and pay the fee (or that's my interpretation of Humberto and Michael Poole's responses). If not, then the person defending the suit will have to pay the fee. Either way, there is a cost involved. Why are we choosing sides if such a cost can't be avoided? Because: 1. it's greater the probability that the licensee is poorer than the licensor; 2. the definition of user (as in we care about our users) fits the licensee better than the licensor -- even if it also fits the licensor; and, finally 3. in the case of a fork (fork == GOOD(TM)) people can end up with a license that make BOTH the licensee and the licensor pay some (possibly hefty) cost to litigate the terms of the license. Example of #3 above: I start a (small) companya that distributes a fork of Mozilla -- under MPL1.1 -- , with a lot of improvements. Someone in Argentina forks my fork, and disobeys some of MPL's rules. Now, to prosecute that someone, I have to travel to California -- because I also agreed to the venue of the MPL 1.1. Worse yet, someone in my home town could be the culprit, and I would still have to go California to prosecute him... probably. This does not seem Free Software to me. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: celestia and JPL license
I'm guessing 'By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees: ... 2. to use a credit line in connection with images.' is a restriction on modification (DFSG #3). I don't think a credit line is enough to trigger DFSG#3, because it would fall under proper attribution of copyright IMHO. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: celestia and JPL license
Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: I don't think a credit line is enough to trigger DFSG#3, because it would fall under proper attribution of copyright IMHO. Maybe I'm misreading this, but the license seems to suggest that it has to be included as part of the image, not just in the documentation? For example, if you were to use one of their picures of Mars in your virtual planetatium, you'd have to put the text 'Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech' not in the documentation, but hovering in space below Mars. I think I may be interpreting this clause wrong, though: there seems to be an even split between websites that do this and websites that roll it up into one credit at the bottom. If the clause were demanding that attribution go right next to the use of the image, this would be non-free, right? -- Lewis Jardine IANAL, IANADD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
Yorick Cool wrote: [...] The reasoning is pretty simple. As Sean said, it is based on the understanding that the GPL is a contract. Yeah. Except that everybody and his dog knows that the FSF's position is that GPL != contract. Moglen and RMS now call it The Constitution (of the GNU Republic, I suppose). http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/41227555ca18833b C'mon, the GPL drafter RMS is on record: http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/8464781e78e421cb regards, alexander.
video libs not DFSG compliant
hello, i'm going to package cinelerra-CVS (cvs.cinelerra.org version and not http://heroinewarrior.com/ version)(people who want know why 2 versions of cinelerra feel free to mail me ) i need the support of debian-legal@ because i wanted to know if: - libavcodec2 - libxvidcore4 - libmjpegtools - libfaad2 and liblame (as i remember for .mp3 patents can't be DFSG compliant) are DFSG compliant. (all libs are GPL/LGPL) can you help me? -- ciao giskard non ho peli sulla lingua. e se ce li ho... non sono miei. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
GPL: Static/Dynamic vs Derivative work and the Conservative position (Re: GPL, yet again.)
First off, please fix your MUA so that it does not delete References: and In-Reply-To:, and follow Debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing people who have not explicitely requested it. On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Yorick Cool wrote: [...] The reasoning is pretty simple. As Sean said, it is based on the understanding that the GPL is a contract. Yeah. Except that everybody and his dog knows that the FSF's position is that GPL != contract. Moglen and RMS now call it The Constitution (of the GNU Republic, I suppose). Whether the GNU GPL is a contract or a license (and indeed, what these terms even mean) is dependent upon the local jurisdiction in which it is being enforced. It's not even a terribly interesting question in this particular aspect, because the GNU GPL doesn't attempt to restrict usage that isn't already restricted by copyright law. At least in the US, the critical metric is not Dynamic linking or Static linking. The critical metric is derivative work. If a resultant work is a derivative work of a GPLed work, then it must comply with the GPL. If it is not a derivative work, then it need not comply with the GPL. The argument of the FSF has been (and continues to be, TTBOMK) that dynamic linking with a GPLed work forms a derivative work when the binary is distributed. This works back up the chain to works which link to things which link to GPLed works because the intermediate work becomes subject to the GPL as well. AFAIK, there isn't any relevant case law covering this type of derivative work, so it's just the opinion of the license drafter and a key copyright holder of GPLed works. Because of this latter point, as far as Debian is concerned, we should continue to assume that dynamic linking forms a deriviative work. This is the conservative position, which is why we've been assuming this for the purposes of distributing works in Debian. Don Armstrong -- You could say she lived on the edge... Well, maybe not exactly on the edge, just close enough to watch other people fall off. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch8.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:22:27PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander Yorick Cool wrote: Alexander On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:32:13PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: Alexander Michael On 9/9/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Michael I am acutely disinterested in that debate because it's long and Alexander Michael boring, but there's a lot of law professors who like it and think that Alexander Michael the GPL does work. I suggest you go argue with them instead. Alexander Michael Alexander Michael Name one other than Mr. Moglen. Alexander Alexander Larry Lessig? Alexander Alexander CC share-alike licenses don't try to infect compilations (collective Alexander works). So? That changes nothing to the fact Lessig considers the GPL -- the license we're talking about -- covers dynamic linking. Alexander Alexander Larry Rosen? I said myself that he was skeptical of the FSF's positions. -- Yorick Cool Chercheur au CRID Rempart de la Vierge, 5 B-5000 Namur Tel: + 32 (0)81 72 47 62 /+32 (0)81 51 37 75 Fax: + 32 (0)81 72 52 02 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:39:14PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander Yorick Cool wrote: Alexander [...] Alexander The reasoning is pretty simple. As Sean said, it is based on the Alexander understanding that the GPL is a contract. Alexander Alexander Yeah. Except that everybody and his dog knows that the FSF's Alexander position is that GPL != contract. Moglen and RMS now call it Alexander The Constitution (of the GNU Republic, I suppose). Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative and then you have to accept them all (including the dynamic linking business), or you admit you can depart with any of their assertions. In this case, the FSF's opinion notwithstanding, the GPL is a contract, there is no solid legal reasoning to suggest otherwise. On the linking issue, there are arguments for both positions. And, as an aside, in civil law at least, the court has full power as to how to qualify an act -- say it is a contract, or license, or whatever -- but is bound by the parties intent of the act's intended effects, in the limit of what the law allows. Alexander C'mon, the GPL drafter RMS is on record: When he speaks as it's drafter, he has no authority, legally speaking -- expect if his view reflects common practice. If he speaks as a licensor, his view is authoritative insofar as it is accepted by the licensee. -- Yorick Cool Chercheur au CRID Rempart de la Vierge, 5 B-5000 Namur Tel: + 32 (0)81 72 47 62 /+32 (0)81 51 37 75 Fax: + 32 (0)81 72 52 02 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CDDL
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 11:54:33AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's what I have in mind: http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/licenses/cddl/summary.html It looks a comprehensive minute apart from repeated points, but some of the stock language needs a tune-up (Who cares whether the licence is DFSG-free? We package software not licences!) Yeah, half of it is still just exposing the data structures anyway. I threw most of the text together in a hurry. Can't make up my mind whether to write in more accurate text or just use an arbitrary name and link to a description. and you already plan to work on the presentation. I think the biggest improvements would be to replace message-id on the index with a format like local_part.MMDD.HH:MM (so henning.0909.14:51 is the first) That's actually more data than I currently store. I'll have to think of a more sensible way of collecting it. Getting those list archive URLs is really fucking hard. and to use a dl instead of a ul for the first level. Bah, I'd have to expand my html repertoire beyond half a dozen tags. In general, I'm impressed and the idea could be used in a lot of places to avoid sending everyone to wade through tons of verbose mail. Will the mail-minute-maker scripts be released? Probably next weekend, I need to defuck a bunch of stuff first. It's highly specific to -legal though. I haven't given much thought to how the logic could be restructured for other kinds of debate; notably this assumes that the only things worth talking about are Yes, this license permits each of the things required by a free license, No, this license includes a non-free restriction, and rebuttals to points (a license is free if it permits all the stuff on the list and doesn't have any valid objections; a point is valid if it has no replies, or if it has no valid rebuttals). I suppose it could run in a degraded mode without any logic to summarise the (current) conclusion, just showing the argument structure. You'd lose the ability to see which points are still important though; a big part of this is that as threads get killed off, they disappear to the 'invalid' chunk at the bottom of the list, so you can just look at the outstanding issues. I expect that any significantly large thread on -legal will generate lots of dead arguments, which is kinda the point. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is, in my opinion, the natural and direct extension of the explicit language that a license cannot require royalties or other fees to be paid in exchange for the rights described in the In my opinion, this is not natural nor direct. Looks like we are down to opinions again... -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dissident test (was re: CDDL)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which is not part of the DFSG, so it does not matter. The Dissident test is a test for DFSG #5, so it does matter. See: No, it is not. The dissident test is something which a few debian-legal@ contributors invented, but which has no grounds in the DFSG. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dissident test
Marco d'Itri writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DFSG#5 is very plain and very broad: it prohibits discrimination against *any* person or group. If you think it should be narrowed, propose an amendment to the SC. Until the DFSG-revisionists came here, the meaning of the DFSG #5 was to forbid licenses which provide the required freedoms only to some people. Using that interpretation, choice-of-venue clauses provide freedom from fees only to those who live in the chosen venue. Again: If you think DFSG#5 is too broad, propose an amendment. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
On 9/12/05, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Alexander Larry Lessig? Alexander Alexander CC share-alike licenses don't try to infect compilations (collective Alexander works). So? That changes nothing to the fact Lessig considers the GPL -- the license we're talking about -- covers dynamic linking. Apropos Lessig... I just wonder what he thinks about allegedly fabricated/garbled* responses from RMS and Moglen regarding derivative works and linking that you can find in the paper that was written for him (upon his request, I'd guess) by Matt Asay. http://www.linuxdevices.com/files/misc/asay-paper.pdf (by Matt Asay, written for Professor Larry Lessig) *) http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004301.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004306.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004308.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004309.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004321.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004353.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004358.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004384.html regards, alexander.
Re: CDDL
On 12 Sep 2005 11:54:33 GMT MJ Ray wrote: In general, I'm impressed and the idea could be used in a lot of places to avoid sending everyone to wade through tons of verbose mail. It looks like a good idea to me too. Will the mail-minute-maker scripts be released? I hope so (above all things I hope that the reply will not be which scripts? it's all done by hand!). -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpeEQQALpnmK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:25:38 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, AFAICT. The DFSG are guidelines to determine whether a *right-holder* gives enough permissions to *licensees*, not whether *Debian* gives enough permissions to *right-holders*. That doesn't appear to be part of the social contract. Well, many DFSG begin with The license must... or The license may They are guidelines that must be followed by the license: *licensees* need a license, *right-holders* don't. So I don't see how can the DFSG specify the permissions that *Debian* gives to *right-holders*... Correct me if I'm wrong. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpSOyjP6ddDV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
Michael K. Edwards wrote: [...] I will grant you Lawrence Lessig even though a few minutes' Googling http://www.google.com/search?q=Lessig+GPL+insane yields http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2005/02/thoughts_on_sof.html Quite refreshing. ;-) quote Similar concerns from an another lawyer: What composes a derivative work of software under copyright law is one of almost complete opacity. Add that to the ambiguous language of the GPL, referring only in part to derivative works, and the result is absolute opacity, or in your words, absolute vagueness, or in Lessig's words, insane complexity. Is the SFLC going to legally clarify this issue of derivative, especially in cases where they raise the spectre of criminal infringement charges? Will the SFLC create some guidelines do provide notice which combinations are subject to copyright and which ones are per-empted by patents? I doubt so. They like using copyright laws that help their cause (102a), and like ignoring copyright laws that hurt their cause (102b). After all, ignoring the law is one thing anarchists like. To quote Eben Moglen: This use of intellectual property rules to create a commons in cyberspace is the central institutional structure enabling the anarchist triumph. http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/anarchism.html I would like to know why law-abiding companies like IBM and Intel, which fund the OSDL which funds the SFLC, why such law-abiding companies are funding those espousing anarchist goals? Are they going to create a defense fund for software pirates next - pirates are anarchists as well? /quote Seriously (apropos per-empted by patents), see also http://www.innovationlaw.org/lawforum/pages/heer.doc (The Case against Copyright Protection of Non-literal Elements of Computer Software) quote Altai has been viewed as a landmark decision as it incorporates many traditional principles of copyright law into a single analytical framework seemingly suitable for computer software. However, when honestly applied, the abstraction-filtration- comparison test eliminates protection for computer programs by entirely filtering out not only the individual elements of computer programs such as software objects but also the compilation of selection and arrangement expression that is the program's structure, since both are designed with efficiency in mind. [...] It is more appropriate to consider the software objects of a computer program as analogous to the gears, pulleys, and levers of a mechanical invention, as by its very nature, the design of computer software is intended to optimize functionality by making a program run faster, use less memory, or be easier for the programmer to modify. When viewed as a collection of software objects combined in such a way as to optimally perform various tasks, the design of computer software closely resembles the design of functional devices protected by patent law rather than the non-functional, non-literal elements of creative authorial works protected under copyright law. /quote regards, alexander.
