Re: Freeness of licence for wwwcount?

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 12:47:59PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:

> The package wwwcount used to be in non-free, and has been subsequently
> removed as it was orphaned.

> I've just had a read of the licence[1], and I can't actually see anything
> terribly wrong with it.

> Can someone with more licensing-fu than me please tell me what's wrong with
> it?

The license, quoted in full:

Copyright 1995-2001 by Muhammad A Muquit. Permission to use, copy, modify
and distribute this program is hereby granted without fee, provided that
this copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright
notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation. If the
source code of the program is modified or enhanced, the source code must be
made public and it must be clearly mentioned in the documentation what was
modified.

THIS PROGRAM IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY. THE
AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ALL
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHOR Muhammad A. Muquit BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE,
DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER
TORTUOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE
OF THIS SOFTWARE. 


So this license prohibits private modifications.

-- 
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

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Jennifer Brown]

From: Steve Langasek [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have
>>in licenses, however.

I suppose a lawyer would argue what is irrelevant at the moment may be very 
relevant at a later time...good or ill it is safer to hedge than not, unless, 
of course, you are the party without any bargaining power...

>>If it wasn't already obvious, most traffic on this list is the result of 
>>disagreements over the application of these guidelines to corner cases. ;)  

It makes for a lively, interesting list

Thanks for the link...trying to navigate all the information out there is 
sometimes overwhelming

Jenn



___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!



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

Freeness of licence for wwwcount?

[Andrew Pollock]

Hi,

The package wwwcount used to be in non-free, and has been subsequently
removed as it was orphaned.

I've just had a read of the licence[1], and I can't actually see anything
terribly wrong with it.

Can someone with more licensing-fu than me please tell me what's wrong with
it?

I wouldn't mind seeing it back in main, as the comment on its removal that
analog is a suitable free replacement isn't really valid. Analog does not
TTBOMK put counters on webpages, it just makes statistics from webserver
logs.

regards

Andrew

[1]http://www.muquit.com/muquit/software/Count/Count.html#copyr


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 07:59:14PM -0400, Jennifer Brown wrote:

> From: Steve Langasek [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Bearing in mind also that people don't generally put clauses in 
> >>their licenses which they believe *can't* be used to their advantage.

> As I understand it choice of venue clauses are standard "boiler plate"
> language in agreements regardless of whether or not the clause has any
> known validity.

Yes, sure; I don't think irrelevant boilerplate is a *good* thing to have in
licenses, however.

> Also please forgive my ignorance but can someone give me a primer on the
> term "free" as it relates to this discussion.  Someone once told me that
> free does not necessarily mean devoid of cost and/or risk. 

The shared definition of "free" used here is the one elaborated at
.  If it wasn't already
obvious, most traffic on this list is the result of disagreements over the
application of these guidelines to corner cases. ;)

-- 
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

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Jennifer Brown]

From: Steve Langasek [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Bearing in mind also that people don't generally put clauses in 
>>their licenses which they believe *can't* be used to their advantage.

As I understand it choice of venue clauses are standard "boiler plate" language 
in agreements regardless of whether or not the clause has any known validity.

Also please forgive my ignorance but can someone give me a primer on the term 
"free" as it relates to this discussion.  Someone once told me that free does 
not necessarily mean devoid of cost and/or risk. 

Thanks
Jenn  

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!



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

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 10:28:23PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I fully understand that _may_ and _shall_ are different terms however,
> > and I will check on this, but I am pretty sure _may_ in this instance
> > is indicating _required._  Again I need to confer with someone to see
> > if licensing agreements fall outside of these specialized rules, but I
> > don_t think they strictly do.  

> > In conclusion it seems that just because a venue/forum selection
> > clause exists does not in-and-of-itself mean that it will hold up in
> > court.

> But it could hold up, couldn't it?
> If this is the case, we must stay on the safe side and assume it will...

Bearing in mind also that people don't generally put clauses in their
licenses which they believe *can't* be used to their advantage.  Surely, the
best test of whether the choice of venue clause is inert is whether the
copyright holder is willing to drop the clause.

-- 
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

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Francesco Poli]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 20:02:49 -0400 (EDT) Jennifer Brown wrote:

> 
> I am new to this list, I arrived here by being interested in the
> Debian Women Project, so please forgive me if I am jumping in where my
> opinion is not wanted and if I am too long winded.

Hi, and welcome to debian-legal!  :)

> I have been trying
> to follow the recent conversation regarding choice of venue (aka forum
> selection clause) and I have a few thoughts...

Thanks for sharing them with us.

[...]
> I fully understand that _may_ and _shall_ are different terms however,
> and I will check on this, but I am pretty sure _may_ in this instance
> is indicating _required._  Again I need to confer with someone to see
> if licensing agreements fall outside of these specialized rules, but I
> don_t think they strictly do.  
> 
> In conclusion it seems that just because a venue/forum selection
> clause exists does not in-and-of-itself mean that it will hold up in
> court.

But it could hold up, couldn't it?
If this is the case, we must stay on the safe side and assume it will...

-- 
:-(   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


pgpnaznzdv2uO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit "Jennifer Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> In conclusion it seems that just because a venue/forum selection
> clause exists does not in-and-of-itself mean that it will hold up in
> court.  Because there are many other factors (like minimum contacts,
> Long-Arm Statutes, foreseeability, superseding legislative laws,
> service of process, precedent within the Federal circuit, etc) that
> are considered when deciding if venue (forum clause or no) is
> \223fair and reasonable.\224

I don't think the ill effects of a choice-of-venue clause are defused
simply because it _may_ not hold up in court. As long as there is any
risk that it _will_ make a difference in court, it constitutes a
burden for the licensee and should be considered non-free.

-- 
Henning Makholm  The burning swoosh shall be our emblem, and
we shall laugh in the face of trademark lawyers.


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

Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...

[Raul Miller]

I think your points make a lot of sense, but you've made them citing
case law valid in a few specific jurisdictions.

A significant element of the concern that's been expressed has had to
do with international law.

In other words, while your points can diffuse some of the fear about
this issue, I'm wishing we could have a broader perspective on it.

Thanks,

-- 
Raul

Re: [debian-ntp] Bug#328200: Problems with ntp

[Joe Smith]

"Matthew Garrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


The file util/ansi2knr.c is also GPL.  I'm pretty sure it's unused, but
an easy reference in debian/copyright would cover it.



This may be a problem if it is used, as:


That simply sounds like a utility program included for maintainer convience. 
The filename explains exactly what it does.

I strongly doubt it is linked to anything besides the C library.


There are several files that are BSD with advertising clause, including
libntp/memmove.c, libntp/mktime.c, libntp/random.c, libntp/strerror.c,
libntp/strstr.c, ntpd/refclock_jupiter.c, and ntpd/refclock_mx4200.c.
These should be referenced in debian/copyright.


BSD with advertising isn't GPL compatible.

--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]






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

Re: [debian-ntp] Bug#328200: Problems with ntp

[Joe Smith]

The UCB advertising clause has been rescinded by the copyright owner.
See this authorization.

 ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change

The advertising clause is no longer required and is deleted.  With all
of the usual cautions about IANAL I believe it is enough to delete
that clause from the copyright and reference that document.

Legally you can do that only for advertisements of UCB. If the 
advertisements are for any other entity they cannot be removed. 




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

Re: Warzone data file

[Joe Smith]

Using the words 'This source code' rather than 'the source code' implies the 
statement aplies to both the source and the data, which are often though of 
together by programmers. I'm pretty sure that the GPL was intended to cover 
the whole thing. Therefore if you are unable to ask for clarification , I 
would personally make an assumption. The odds of the author doing anything 
more than requesting that we stop distributing said datafiles are slim. 




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

Re: celestia and JPL license

[Joe Smith]

"Mathias Weyland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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



Has anybody sought clarification from JPL about the case where standard 
media credit lines do not apply?
My guess is that they would simply request that if used in software the line 
'Some images courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech.' Be shown along with copyright 
notices. This would include 'about' screens.
The purpose for the licence seems to be reciving credit for the images. If 
such clarification can be recived then (unless people really have a problem 
with the 'descrimitation' against JPL-Caltech employees using the images in 
Adverts or PR), the images can be kept.



[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: Pre-ITP - LARN and Noah Morgan

[MJ Ray]

Alex Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been unable to contact Don Kneller so far, so I'm currently
> expecting to backport recent patches onto Noah's upstream version.
> Before I do that, I'd appreciate feedback on whether the text below
> is sufficient to explain the copyright and licensing ancestry.

Looks comprehensive. Thanks for tracking all that down. 
Disputes seem unlikely, but sadly it's not safe to ignore.


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

Re: To MPL or not.

[MJ Ray]

George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> MJ Ray, please would you be so kind to add your pointers about MPL and IDPL 
> at: http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/licences.html

It may appear there once the dust has settled on this discussion.
Its next stop should be legal/dlpl0509 if all goes to plan.

Thanks,
-- 
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]