Finjan NG5000 Web Proxy
Hi, A company I work for is evaluating the http://www.finjan.com/products/EnterpriseProducts/NG5000/ Web proxy device. When it boots it outputs to a monitor ( amongst other things ) Uncompressing Linux .. INIT: Entering Run Level 2 .. Starting system log daemon: syslogd Starting kernel log daemon: klogd .. Starting webmin: webmin .. Debian Gnu/Linux 3.1 Vital Security tty1 Login: I can't find any mention of Debian in the documentation or their website A member of my local LUG suggest I send this here. I hope it is of interest. AED -- If you make decisions about software -- or anything -- based solely on short-term cost and benefit, someone with a longer view can easily manoeuver you into a trap from which it is hard to escape. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Finjan NG5000 Web Proxy
Le mercredi 09 novembre 2005 à 10:23 +, Alan Dawson a écrit : Hi, A company I work for is evaluating the http://www.finjan.com/products/EnterpriseProducts/NG5000/ Web proxy device. When it boots it outputs to a monitor ( amongst other things ) Debian Gnu/Linux 3.1 Vital Security tty1 Login: I can't find any mention of Debian in the documentation or their website There's no need for them to mention Debian. However, the source should be provided alongside with the device. If it isn't, and if there isn't a written offer to get this source, this is a violation of the GPL. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Finjan NG5000 Web Proxy
Quoting Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I can't find any mention of Debian in the documentation or their website There's no need for them to mention Debian. However, the source should be provided alongside with the device. If it isn't, and if there isn't a written offer to get this source, this is a violation of the GPL. I can see no mention of the GPL on the website, though it does mention Linux .. The Vital Security Appliance Series NG-5000 includes its own operating system, based on a hardened, secure version of Linux.. AED -- If you make decisions about software -- or anything -- based solely on short-term cost and benefit, someone with a longer view can easily manoeuver you into a trap from which it is hard to escape. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Finjan NG5000 Web Proxy
I've emailed finjan software asking for them to put the sourcecode up. andrew On 11/10/05, Alan Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I can't find any mention of Debian in the documentation or their website There's no need for them to mention Debian. However, the source should be provided alongside with the device. If it isn't, and if there isn't a written offer to get this source, this is a violation of the GPL. I can see no mention of the GPL on the website, though it does mention Linux .. The Vital Security Appliance Series NG-5000 includes its own operating system, based on a hardened, secure version of Linux.. AED -- If you make decisions about software -- or anything -- based solely on short-term cost and benefit, someone with a longer view can easily manoeuver you into a trap from which it is hard to escape. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See store for details. Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
Re: Finjan NG5000 Web Proxy
Hi, Andrew Donnellan wrote: I've emailed finjan software asking for them to put the sourcecode up. I'd be interested in seeing what (if anything) they respond. Based on what I read at the website, this product likely includes iptables and netfilter. You may want to inform Harald Welte, its copyright holder. Or see his website at http://www.gpl-violations.org/ Regards, Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Finjan NG5000 Web Proxy
I'll put any response on-list. Also, yes, I have seen GPL Violations. I will contact them if finjan doesn't respond. Andrew On 11/10/05, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Andrew Donnellan wrote: I've emailed finjan software asking for them to put the sourcecode up. I'd be interested in seeing what (if anything) they respond. Based on what I read at the website, this product likely includes iptables and netfilter. You may want to inform Harald Welte, its copyright holder. Or see his website at http://www.gpl-violations.org/ Regards, Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See store for details. Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
Re: Ubuntu CDs contain no sources
On 11/8/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have asked some CDs from Ubuntu and they have sent me their Debian-based distro for free (as in free beer). However, they contain GPL-licensed software, including dpkg, but not their sources. Ubuntu does distribute sources; and in a quite reasonable fashion. Or should I consider this a GPL violation? Then, I hope dpkg copyright holders inforce their copyright. You need to find more important things to think about and hope for. -- Chris `The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy,' he said. `But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.' - Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona
Is the Smithsonian Institution Copyright License DFSG-Free?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello good people-- I'm considering ITP'ing CIAO [0], but before i look into it further, i wanted to get this community's advice on its freeness. I wasn't able to find any prior discussion of CIAO within debian, but if i missed something, please let me know. The bulk of CIAO appears [1] to be licensed under the Smithsonian Institution Copyright License [2]. The only other debian reference to this license i've been able to turn up is in Steve McIntyre's report on netpbm licensing [3], which refers to it as A variation on the BSD license. I haven't done a full code audit yet to ensure that all the relevant source is in fact under the SIC, but if the SIC itself is considered non-free, that would be a huge blocker for me. Thanks for the great work you all do keeping debian on the right track. Regards, --dkg [0] http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/ [1] ftp://cxc.harvard.edu/pub/ciao3.2/all/README (search for Usage/Licensing) [2] http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/threads/ciao_install/sao_copyright.txt [3] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/n/netpbm-free/netpbm-free_10.0-10/copyright -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQFDcnATiXTlFKVLY2URAlGnAJ4oVnox6jsBz6wpUtHAYe6OTJMIGgCg7bmR ih/XgbSYOxtwtl9zawIL4SY= =m55p -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the Smithsonian Institution Copyright License DFSG-Free?
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 16:54:58 -0500 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: [...] Hello good people-- Hi! :) I'm considering ITP'ing CIAO [0], but before i look into it further, i wanted to get this community's advice on its freeness. Good. [...] The only other debian reference to this license i've been able to turn up is in Steve McIntyre's report on netpbm licensing [3], which refers to it as A variation on the BSD license. Full text of the license is pasted below, for future reference: /*/ /* Copyrights: */ /* */ /* Copyright (c) 1999 2003 Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory */ /* */ /* Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this */ /* software and its documentation for any purpose is hereby */ /* granted without fee, provided that the above copyright */ /* notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright */ /* notice and this permission notice appear in supporting docu- */ /* mentation, and that the name of the Smithsonian Astro- */ /* physical Observatory not be used in advertising or publicity */ /* pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, */ /* written prior permission. The Smithsonian Astrophysical */ /* Observatory makes no representations about the suitability */ /* of this software for any purpose. It is provided as is */ /* without express or implied warranty. */ /* THE SMITHSONIAN ASTROPHYSICAL OBSERVATORY DISCLAIMS ALL */ /* WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING ALL */ /* IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO */ /* EVENT SHALL THE SMITHSONIAN ASTROPHYSICAL OBSERVATORY 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 TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH */ /* THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. */ /* */ /*/ It actually seems like a mix of Expat and 3-clause-BSD licenses. I think it's DFSG-free and GPL-compatible. I haven't done a full code audit yet to ensure that all the relevant source is in fact under the SIC, but if the SIC itself is considered non-free, that would be a huge blocker for me. If nobody disagrees with my analysis, you can begin the full code audit, I would say... Thanks for the great work you all do keeping debian on the right track. Happy to help. -- :-( 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 pgpzYUcnXib0M.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]
[replying to a message that was directed to debian-devel only, but readding debian-legal in Cc:] On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 09:38:07 +0100 Andreas Schuldei wrote: * Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-08 00:28:07]: The authors have the freedom to pick a DFSG-free license means that they *may* do so, but are not required to. Am I correct? IMHO, DebConf paper authors should be *required* to publish in a DFSG-free manner, as a condition for presenting at the conference. Don't you agree that seeing non-free or even undistributable (no license means All Rights Reserved, with current laws!) papers at a DebConf is really a shame? given your knowledge level of how debconf intents to handle things and the way you escalate this issue gives me the idea that you mainly want to raise a stink and create unrest. First of all, it is *not at all* my intention to raise stinks or create unrest. If I gave the impression of being rude, I apologize: I didn't want to. I am not an English native speaker, hence I may have chosen the wrong words or style when drafting my message; moreover I may have misunderstood something when reading the C4P (Call For Papers). So please inform yourself properly first. I visited http://debconf.org/ and failed to find any other relevant information about paper licensing, apart from the C4P itself. If you can point me to some URL where I can get first-hand info about how DebConf organizers plan to handle this kind of things, I would appreciate it. that might include to take up the issue in a friendly way with someone who is involved I think you are involved (!) and I did raise this issue with you privately (end of last August), but unfortunately the thread died out... Now your C4P for DebConf6 reminded me of the issue, so I went through it as carefully as I could searching for any indication on how it was handled. I found the above-quoted sentence (The authors have the freedom to pick a DFSG-free license) and felt it was not clear enough (again I am not an English native speaker, but many many people are not either). That is why I asked for clarification and, in case the sentence means what I'm afraid it does, I suggested a different policy... As to the friendliness, I tried hard to be as polite and friendly as I could. Again, if I failed, it's my fault: I apologize. I really appreciate your efforts to organize the best conference you can. I really *love* the idea of a conference entirely dedicated to Debian, to be held in a different place each time. That's why I consider this issue as an important one: every DebConf is an event through which we get public attention and can thus spread our philosophy. The message really works better if we act consistently with our philosophy, IMHO. or trying to submit a proposal, paper or even give a talk yourself. I really doubt I will be able to attend DebConf6, unfortunately. :-( You might also think about the organizers options when a speaker surprisingly NOT picks a DFSG free license, If the rules mandate a DFSG-free license (as I suggest), I think the only option for the organizers is to not include the paper/presentation/handout in the conference proceedings and to not distribute it through the conference website, until the licensing issue is solved. Just like a Debian package doesn't enter main, until it meets Policy requirements (DFSG-freeness being one of them). double-licenses his talk in an awkward way If you mean dual-licenses, then everything's fine as long as at least one of the chosen licenses makes the paper/presentation/handout DFSG-free. Otherwise, goto previous case. ;-) or declares before the audience that his talk must not be distributed. In that case the talk cannot be distributed through the conference website or in the proceedings. But this holds even if you do not mandate a DFSG-free license. Actually the C4P already requires some permissions from the authors: | Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers, | presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual materials | used in conjunction with the presentation. Hence, you already have to plan what to do, when an author does not fulfill the C4P requirements. Correct me, if I'm wrong. Also consider the legal implications of an intention or promise to release a DFSG free talk vs the actual act of releasing the work and when that happens in a legally binding way. Then consider the character of the CFP as a legaly binding document for the licenses of the actual talks of the speakers. As I said above, the publication of papers/presentations/handouts is anyway subject to some conditions. What I suggest is simply adding one further condition. I hope I clarified what I mean... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint
Re: KJV Bible - Crown Copyright in UK and Commonwealth
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 05:43:33PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: Does the crown copyright on the KJV affect other Commonwealth countries e.g. Australia? I don't know. If it hasn't been abrogated by the Australian legislative body between independence and present, it does. I suppose that Australia has passed one or more Copyright Acts since its independence, so the answer is in there. I did a quick Googling: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s8a.html COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 8A Prerogative rights of the Crown in the nature of copyright (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act does not affect any prerogative right or privilege of the Crown. (2) Where a right or privilege of the Crown by way of copyright subsists in a work or published edition of a work, a person does not infringe that right or privilege by doing, or authorizing the doing of, an act in relation to the work or edition without the licence of the Crown if, assuming that that right or privilege of the Crown did not subsist in the work or edition, but copyright subsisted under this Act in the work or edition and was owned by a person other than the Crown, the person would not infringe the copyright of that owner in the work or edition by doing, or by authorizing the doing of, that act without the licence of the owner. (3) Nothing in subsection (2) shall be taken to limit the duration of the right or privilege of the Crown by way of copyright in a work or published edition of a work. So, it may be that the Crown still holds a copyright on the KJV of the Bible, but printing, distributing or making derivative works or anything else (except maybe moral rights things?) of the KJV does not infringe on the Crown copyright. IANAL, so read yourself and check that no other section cancels out that one for the KJV. In particular, I don't understand http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s5.html . -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: KJV Bible - Crown Copyright in UK and Commonwealth
I believe section 5 is basically repealing the Imperial Copyright Act 1911. I think section 8a(2) is saying that you can do anything you want with Crown works and still not infringe, on the condition that there are no other copyright holders, e.g. I can copy the KJV, but not government works under crown copyright, because if there was no crown copyright, then the government would hold normal copyright instead. What's the situation in the UK? Andrew On 11/10/05, Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 05:43:33PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: Does the crown copyright on the KJV affect other Commonwealth countries e.g. Australia? I don't know. If it hasn't been abrogated by the Australian legislative body between independence and present, it does. I suppose that Australia has passed one or more Copyright Acts since its independence, so the answer is in there. I did a quick Googling: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s8a.html COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 8A Prerogative rights of the Crown in the nature of copyright (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act does not affect any prerogative right or privilege of the Crown. (2) Where a right or privilege of the Crown by way of copyright subsists in a work or published edition of a work, a person does not infringe that right or privilege by doing, or authorizing the doing of, an act in relation to the work or edition without the licence of the Crown if, assuming that that right or privilege of the Crown did not subsist in the work or edition, but copyright subsisted under this Act in the work or edition and was owned by a person other than the Crown, the person would not infringe the copyright of that owner in the work or edition by doing, or by authorizing the doing of, that act without the licence of the owner. (3) Nothing in subsection (2) shall be taken to limit the duration of the right or privilege of the Crown by way of copyright in a work or published edition of a work. So, it may be that the Crown still holds a copyright on the KJV of the Bible, but printing, distributing or making derivative works or anything else (except maybe moral rights things?) of the KJV does not infringe on the Crown copyright. IANAL, so read yourself and check that no other section cancels out that one for the KJV. In particular, I don't understand http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s5.html . -- Lionel -- This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See store for details. Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
