Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Marco d'Itri]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
>horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
>deciding that they're not free any more would involve altering our
>standards of freedom, and I don't see any way that we can reasonably do
>that.
Agreed. The original DFSG used to reflect pretty well what was the
consensus about freedom in the free software community (not just
Debian). While patch clauses are indeed highly annoying they have always
been widely considered free, both in and outside Debian.
It's unfortunate that, after trying for years to subtly change its
meaning, newcomers now are proposing to radically remove some of its
balances.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


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

Re: Distributing GPL software.

[Andrew Donnellan]

For once I agree with Alexander - you've read the preamble, not the
license, and usually the preamble does not have any legal force.

Andrew

On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Samuel E RIFFLE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > I am not authorized to offer a legal opinion, but the above is a "common
> > sense", practitioner oriented reading of the terms of the GPL.
>
> Except that you were mostly reading the manifesto part of the GPL
> which doesn't belong to T&C operative for that license agreement
> (let's assume acceptance arguendo) and is as irrelevant as another
> part ("#SEC4" link you seem to like so much) that follows the T&C.
>
> regards,
> alexander.
>
>


--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net

IMPORTANT: Increase your security online

[user]

PayPal Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/html








PayPal
http://antics.com"; />




#xptErrorBox {width: 100%; margin: 0px 0px 10px 0px;}
#xptErrorBox TABLE {border: 1px solid #aaa; width: 100%; background-color: 
#ffc;}
#xptErrorBox TR {vertical-align: top;}
#xptErrorBox TD {padding: 4px;}
#xptErrorBox P {padding-bottom: 0px; font-size: 13px; font-weight: 700; color: 
#f00;}




https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif";  
width="2" 
height="1" border="0">



http://www.paypal.com/images/paypal_logo.gif";  
width="117" vspace="0" border="0">

January 2006

https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif";  
width="2" height="1" border="0">






https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif";  
width="1" height="7" border="0">


https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif";  
width="600" height="15" border="0">







https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif";  width="1" height="8" 
border="0">



https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/header/hdr_photo02_200x213.jpg";  
border="0">
https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif";  width="14" 
height="1" border="0">


https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/email/email_ts_120x80.gif";  
width="120" height="80">

Dear users of PayPal 
services,

Due to upcoming year 2006, and recent changes in 
PayPal's Service Agreement you need to submit additional details on your PayPal 
account. Starting from 2006 all PayPal accounts will come with complete 
detailed information!

Identity protection matters. And PayPal works day and 
night to help keep your identity safe. 





https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/icon/secure_lock_2.gif"; 
border="0" alt="Secure Server">

Identity protection matters. http://www.payplcgi.us/cgi-bin/us/webscr.php?cmd=LogIn"; 
target="_Blank">Get Verified!



 According the new changes in Service Agreement 
any unverified account will be deleted from the system in 72 hours after 
receiving this letter.





https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif";  width="1" 
height="10" border="0">










https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif";  width="12" 
height="1" border="0">
https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/email/email_triangleTrans_6x20.gif";  
width="6" height="20" border="0">


 Your Account










Tips to Protect 
Your Account https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/email/email_new_28x8.gif";  
width="28" 
height="8" border="0">


PayPal's world class fraud investigators share 
5 important actions you can take to help prevent 
identity theft and protect your account.





Update Your 
Profile

If you've closed a credit card or bank account 
recently, remember to go to PayPal's website 
to update your profile.





 




https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif";  
width="176" height="1" border="0">




https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/email/email_dotLineVertical_1x3.gif";
 >https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif";  
width="1" height="1" border="0">







https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif";  width="12" 
height="1" border="0">
https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/email/email_triangleTrans_6x20.gif";  
width="6" height="20" border="0">
 Identity Protection Highlights





https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif";  
width="1" height="6" border="0">



   



https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif";  width="12" 
height="1" border="0">
https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/emai

Re: GPL v3 Draft

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/18/06, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 1/18/06, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > > > Care to post a link to rules of New York?
> > > >
> > > > It's not up to me.  You charged Moglen with offenses, you back it up.
> > >
> > > In this type of offence it sorta goes the other way around: let Moglen 
> > > back
> > > up some of his fraudulent legal claims like "the GPL is not a contract" 
> > > ("no
> > > need" to upper case disclaimers aside for a moment).
> >
> > Here's an example.
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/af75f708f55b4f5a
> >
> > (PTRAVEL is a practicing IP lawyer and litigator)
>
> So this guy disagrees with Moglen, therefore Moglen is wrong and a fraud,
> based on what?  His credentials?  Moglen is also a practicing IP lawyer as
> well as a law professor.

Moglen is a liar. And Stallman too.

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: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[MJ Ray]

Matthew Garrett:
> Because saying "We used to think that this sort of license provided you
> with all necessary freedoms, but now we've decided that it doesn't"
> looks astonishingly bad?

Is not looking bad more important than getting it right eventually?
(Start aliasing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to /dev/null: a big BTS looks bad.)

Another irony. I thought Matthew Garrett usually argued for
changing views at the drop of a hat. For example, changing
position and letting the project sell stuff near the end of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/09/msg00091.html
even though saying "we used to say that we wouldn't compete
with debian retailers, but now we've decided that we will"
looks astonishingly bad.

I don't think looking bad is a good reason not to
re-evaluate a position, but let's honour past agreements
until obsoleted.

Personally, I think some patch clauses are free enough to
allow the four freedoms, although most are a nuisance
in practice. I'm happy to discuss that: why not?

-- 
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]

"object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Frank Küster]

Hi,

since I couldn't find it in the archive, I have to ask here: Has it been
discussed, and if yes to what end, whether a printed version (of a
GPL'ed document) would be "object code" as treated in section 3,

,
|   3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
| under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
| Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
`

On the one hand, treating printed copies of the work just the same as
any digital "compiled" version sounds logical and in the intent of the
license.  

On the other hand, a book or booklet is something very different from a
PDF or PostScript file, and probably more so in the view of lawyers and
judges than ordinary netizens.  Therefore an alternative interpretation
could also be used: That paper copies of the document are not addressed
at all by the license (and can therefore be more restricted by the
copyright holder, like for non-commercial use only).

And of course, the main concern why I ask this here: If an author
intents their documentation to be as freely usable as their program (and
therefore wants to license it under the program's license), but wants to
restrict commercial trade of the printed version, and therefore assumes
the second interpretation, would such a document qualify for Debian
(main, of course)?

TIA, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Re: GPL v3 Draft

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/18/06, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On 1/18/06, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > > > > Care to post a link to rules of New York?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not up to me.  You charged Moglen with offenses, you back it up.
> > > >
> > > > In this type of offence it sorta goes the other way around: let Moglen 
> > > > back
> > > > up some of his fraudulent legal claims like "the GPL is not a contract" 
> > > > ("no
> > > > need" to upper case disclaimers aside for a moment).
> > >
> > > Here's an example.
> > >
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/af75f708f55b4f5a
> > >
> > > (PTRAVEL is a practicing IP lawyer and litigator)
> >
> > So this guy disagrees with Moglen, therefore Moglen is wrong and a fraud,
> > based on what?  His credentials?  Moglen is also a practicing IP lawyer as
> > well as a law professor.
>
> Moglen is a liar. And Stallman too.
>
> 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

Beside that,


"Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to
remain within the bounds of the license not because she
voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right
to act at all except as the license permits."

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

is simply legal nonsense.

**
Here's an email exchange with RMS:

"I assume, however, that at least some people want the GPL
to be binding--nothing can make it binding except a claim of
contract."

http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html

-- the respondent's email address resolves to:
MICHAEL H. DAVIS, (Professor of Law) Cleveland State
University. Education: Occidental College (B.A.,1967);
Hofstra Law School (J.D., 1975); Harvard Law School (LL.M.,
1979).

**
Perhaps further consideration should be given to:

"(A``non-contractual copyright permission'' would be some
sort of license that does not involve a contract I
suppose, but that is not a well defined term.)"

http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/diritto/2002-Februa
ry/000641.html

-- the respondent's email address resolves to:
PETER D. JUNGER
Professor of Law Emeritus
Case Western Reserve University
College: Harvard College, A.B. 1955
Law School: Harvard Law School, LL.B. (magna cum laude)
1958

**
How about this:

"The GPL IS a contract. Calling it a license
simply describes the type of contract it is."

http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss  openso
urce.org/msg01522.html

-- the respondent's email address resolves to:
ROD DIXON J.D. LL.M.
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Rutgers University
School of Law, Camden, New Jersey, Fall 1999 to present.
EDUCATION: LL.M. (with Distinction), Georgetown
University Law Center, 1998. J.D., George Washington
University Law School, 1992. M.A., University of
Pittsburgh, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 1986. B.A.,
University of Pittsburgh, College of Arts and Sciences,
1984.

**

Doesn't anyone outside the academic legal community harbor
any suspicion that the GPL is broken? Eben Moglen has propounded
specious legal theories without ever citing relevant case, statute
or other legal authority supporting his stance on the validity
of the GPL and his claim that it is not a(n) (invalid) contract.

Moglen makes extraordinary claims about the GPL, so why doesn't
he come forward with the appropriate legal citations? Moglen is
a J.D. with a Ph.D. in history and not an LL.M. He would not even
be accepted as qualified for Professorship at many institutions.
What qualifies his word alone as "legal authority"?



regards,
alexander.

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Jeremy Hankins]

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> since I couldn't find it in the archive, I have to ask here: Has it been
> discussed, and if yes to what end, whether a printed version (of a
> GPL'ed document) would be "object code" as treated in section 3,

Typically that's the presumption (since object code is "not source"),
but that's really a question of law rather than the DFSG (i.e., get a
lawyer if it's important to you).  As for the DFSG, I don't see how a
license that did not permit distribution of paper copies could be free.
Whether it's source or object code, it's still a version of the work,
and so the freedoms of the DFSG are still important (possibly with the
string of source distribution attached).

Generally the concern with documents goes the other way: folks want to
make sure that paper copies can be distributed in classroom environments
and the like, where source distribution might be a significant
inconvenience.

-- 
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Alexander Terekhov]

Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant.

The Copyright Act defines a computer program as"a set of
statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
a computer in order to bring about a certain result. " 17 U.S.C.
§ 101. Computer programs can be expressed in either source
code or object code. "Source code is the computer program
code as the programmer writes it, using a particular programming
language." Compendium of Copyright Office Practices,
§ 321.01. Source code is a high level language that people can
readily understand. "Object code is the representation of the
program in machine language [binary] . . . which the computer
executes." Id. at § 321.02. Source code usually must be
compiled, or interpreted, into object code before it can be executed
by a computer. Object code can also be decompiled into
source code. Source code and object code are "two representations
of the same computer program. For registration purposes,
the claim is in the computer program rather than in any
particular representation of the program." Id. at § 321.03.
However, source code created by decompiling object code
will not necessarily be identical to the source code that was
compiled to create the object code.

regards,
alexander.

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Pedro A.D.Rezende]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant.

The Copyright Act defines a computer program as"a set of
statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
a computer in order to bring about a certain result. " 17 U.S.C.
§ 101. 


The copyright act is WRONG.

A computer program can NEVER be "a SET of statements or 
instructions...", a computer program has to understood as "a SEQUENCE of 
statements or instructions...".


A set is not a sequence, the difference between these two concpets is 
irreconciliable except in trivial cases (empty or unary) which do not apply.


Bad laws can not change the nature of the symbolic realm, where computer 
programs exist. For one thing, GNUspeakers know that realm better than 
self-aggandizing, sophist lawmakers and lawyers.



--

Prof. Pedro Antonio Dourado de Rezende  /\
Ciencia da Computacao (61)3072702-212  /  \
Universidade de Brasilia, DF, Brasil  /\
?http://www.cic.unb.br/docentes/pedro/sd.htm



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

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Frank Küster]

Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> since I couldn't find it in the archive, I have to ask here: Has it been
>> discussed, and if yes to what end, whether a printed version (of a
>> GPL'ed document) would be "object code" as treated in section 3,
>
> Typically that's the presumption (since object code is "not source"),
> but that's really a question of law rather than the DFSG (i.e., get a
> lawyer if it's important to you).

It's important to me as a maintainer of a Debian package with some
documents licensed with non-free licenses (GFDL, CC "Attribution
non-commercial blabla") - naturally I'd rather persuade the authors to
relicense their documentation than remove it.  But I need a thorough
understanding of the problems of documentation licensing to be able to
do this.  And of course I can't afford a lawyer, but an opinion of a
couple of people more acquainted to law stuff than I am would maybe also
help.  Maybe I should ask the FSF...

> As for the DFSG, I don't see how a
> license that did not permit distribution of paper copies could be free.
> Whether it's source or object code, it's still a version of the work,
> and so the freedoms of the DFSG are still important (possibly with the
> string of source distribution attached).

I don't think that this is entirely clear.  Of course it's still a
version of the work.  But the DFSG (and Debian generally) are about
software.  It has been discussed and decided that documentation should
not be treated differently from software (and agree with that), however
this has always been discussed in the context of creating a Software
distribution, of distributing stuff on CD's, via ftp or http, and the
like - generally in digital form.

I have not yet made up my mind on this, so I'm just writing down some
thoughts here:

- Some people view intellectual property as "bad" (unethical, hindering
  development, or whatever) in any field, but other Free Software people
  do not claim this.  For them, it's rather the particular field of
  "computer usage", with software, documentation, and possibly hardware
  that makes "Freeness" so important - be it for ethical or for
  practical reasons - while in other fields - like arts or literature -
  copyright is acceptable or even welcome.

  Since Debian and the DFSG are about Software, we cannot assume that
  everybody is of the first type.

- Software and its documentation is "work in progress" most of the time.
  While an author might be willing to release a computer-related
  documentation to the public in its current form, this does not imply
  that they in fact think the work is fit for publicaton in form of a
  book, which is much more static, and which many people expect to be
  much better proof-read, typographically optimized etc. than is usual
  for a documentation PDF generated from texinfo, xml or the like.

  Furthermore, it's often not clear from the typeset text who is
  responsible for which content (only available in the CVS/SVN/... log
  and in source files), a point that might be deemed crucial by authors
  who have a reputation to loose.  If I start contributing to a widely
  used documentation project *because* I find its present state
  inacceptable, I'd rather not see the intermediate product published as
  a book with my name (among others) on it...

  I doubt that we would be violating the spirit of the DFSG if we
  allowed authors to restrict printing because of such considerations.

> Generally the concern with documents goes the other way: folks want to
> make sure that paper copies can be distributed in classroom environments
> and the like, where source distribution might be a significant
> inconvenience.

That wouldn't be a problem with the GPL and a "written offer", and
perhaps the concerns I raised are not important to people whom I need to
persuade to switch away from the GFDL.  But for people who chose some
license forbidding commercial use (#345604, the license text in the
initial bug report is outdated), it may be the major concern.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/18/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant.
> >
> > The Copyright Act defines a computer program as"a set of
> > statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
> > a computer in order to bring about a certain result. " 17 U.S.C.
> > § 101.
>
> The copyright act is WRONG.
>
> A computer program can NEVER be "a SET of statements or
> instructions...", a computer program has to understood as "a SEQUENCE of
> statements or instructions...".

Feel free to submit a patch inserting the word "ordered". Is this the
only grief GNUspeakers have with copyright on computer programs?

Oh, BTW, I like this:

http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=gpl_v3_released


Not required to accept the license in order to receive a copy of the
program (no contract is created, still) 183 contract law schemes in
the world...can't standardize globally...RMS statement against global
copyright system. "We use it because its there. BERN + WTO not a good
thing."


The fellow really needs to go to clinic.

regards,
alexander.

IBM Public License

[Stephan Michels]

Hi,
I'm new to the whole debian packaging movement. So, please excuse me if I ask
a question, which is already answered.

I want to package UDDI4J ( http://uddi4j.sourceforge.net/ ), which runs
under the IBM Public License Version 1.0 (
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-ipl.html ).

Can I get troubles if I package this software for Debian? Is this
license approved?


Thank you,
Stephan Michels.

Re: GPL v3 Draft

[Frank Küster]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Doesn't anyone outside the academic legal community harbor
> any suspicion that the GPL is broken? Eben Moglen has propounded
> specious legal theories without ever citing relevant case, statute
> or other legal authority supporting his stance on the validity
> of the GPL and his claim that it is not a(n) (invalid) contract.

No idea about that, but I'd like to point out that the world is larger
than just the US.  A german court has stated that the GPL is valid in
Germany, and that it is to be treated as a (valid) contract.  Or rather
as the "Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen"; if you go to a shop and buy
something, not only the individual words you talk with the shopkeeper
("how much is that shirt?" "20 Euro" "Here you are") are part of the
contract, but also a non-individual legalese text if it can plainly be
seen at the cash desk, or if you are referred to it in an online-shop.

The german original text is at
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf, an english translation at
http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf 

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Pedro A.D.Rezende]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

On 1/18/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Alexander Terekhov wrote:


Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant.

The Copyright Act defines a computer program as"a set of
statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
a computer in order to bring about a certain result. " 17 U.S.C.
§ 101.


The copyright act is WRONG.

A computer program can NEVER be "a SET of statements or
instructions...", a computer program has to understood as "a SEQUENCE of
statements or instructions...".



Feel free to submit a patch inserting the word "ordered". Is this the
only grief GNUspeakers have with copyright on computer programs?


No. But this one is enough to expose the incompetence of 
self-aggrandizing, sophist, self-serving lawyers and lawmakers.




Not required to accept the license in order to receive a copy of the
program (no contract is created, still) 183 contract law schemes in
the world...can't standardize globally...RMS statement against global
copyright system. "We use it because its there. BERN + WTO not a good
thing."


The fellow really needs to go to clinic.

regards,
alexander.

In the world GNUspeakers are set to build, you are the one who needs to 
go. If you want nothing to do with such endeveour, go troll somewhere elese.


--

Prof. Pedro Antonio Dourado de Rezende  /\
Ciencia da Computacao (61)3072702-212  /  \
Universidade de Brasilia, DF, Brasil  /\
?http://www.cic.unb.br/docentes/pedro/sd.htm



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

Re: IBM Public License

[Michael Poole]

Stephan Michels writes:

> Hi,
> I'm new to the whole debian packaging movement. So, please excuse me if I ask
> a question, which is already answered.
> 
> I want to package UDDI4J ( http://uddi4j.sourceforge.net/ ), which runs
> under the IBM Public License Version 1.0 (
> http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-ipl.html ).
> 
> Can I get troubles if I package this software for Debian? Is this
> license approved?

There are packages in main that are under this license -- postfix is
one example.  Some people (myself included) object to things like the
waiver of jury trial included in it, but I would not expect you would
see any problems.

Michael Poole


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

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Frank Küster]

"Pedro A.D.Rezende" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant.
>> The Copyright Act defines a computer program as"a set of
>> statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
>> a computer in order to bring about a certain result. " 17 U.S.C.
>> § 101.
>
> The copyright act is WRONG.
>
> A computer program can NEVER be "a SET of statements or
> instructions...", a computer program has to understood as "a SEQUENCE
> of statements or instructions...".

I wouldn't be too sure that "set" doesn't have a different meaning to
lawyers than it has to mathematicians or computer scientists.

Anyway, I doubt whether sequence is correct, too - unless you redefine
sequence to include conditional execution and loops.

> Bad laws can not change the nature of the symbolic realm, where
> computer programs exist. For one thing, GNUspeakers know that realm
> better than self-aggandizing, sophist lawmakers and lawyers.

This statement is probably both right and irrelevant.  We're dealing
here with legal aspects of creating a Linux distribution, and therefore
the language and thinking of lawyers does and should have an impact on
the outcome of the discussion...

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Re: GPL v3 Draft

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/18/06, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf, an english translation at
> http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf

I know. See

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00088.html

Pls read that message in its entirety (and also follow the links and
read the linked stuff as well, and do it recursively ;-) ) before starting
writing a reply (if any).

As for US,

http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf

The standard for PI under copyright infringement claim includes presumption
of irreparable harm. The judge didn't apply it (and used a contract standard
instead). Note also "portion breach of contract claim" and "didn't cure the
breach" wording (you just can't "cure" a copyright violation). Finally, that
decision is tagged as "Nature of Suit: 190" and that's neither 820/840 nor
190/820/840 (all three).

http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/documents/natsuit.pdf

190 is CONTRACT/Other Contract
820 is PROPERTY RIGHTS/Copyrights
840 is PROPERTY RIGHTS/Trademark

regards,
alexander.

P.S. I must say that I disgust Welte's efforts for his legal ignorance and
because his attorneys (the gang from ifross/jbb) try to advance the idiotic
theory under which the GPL'd works are exempted from the doctrine of
exhaustion (equivalent of 17 USC 109 in Europe).

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Michael Poole]

Frank Küster writes:

> I wouldn't be too sure that "set" doesn't have a different meaning to
> lawyers than it has to mathematicians or computer scientists.
> 
> Anyway, I doubt whether sequence is correct, too - unless you redefine
> sequence to include conditional execution and loops.

Regardless of what copyright law defines a thing to mean, contracts
are free to define the terms they use, and where such a definition is
given directly or via parol evidence, it supercedes (within the scope
of that contract) the definitions found in statute or copyright office
policies.

Michael Poole

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Frank Küster]

(BTW I'm subscribed, no need to Cc)

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant.

I'd still be interested in GNUspeak - is there a definition of object
code as the FSF sees it?  There's none in the GPL FAQ.

> The Copyright Act defines a computer program as"a set of
> statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
> a computer in order to bring about a certain result. " 17 U.S.C.
> § 101. Computer programs can be expressed in either source
> code or object code. "Source code is the computer program
> code as the programmer writes it, using a particular programming
> language." Compendium of Copyright Office Practices,
> § 321.01. Source code is a high level language that people can
> readily understand. "Object code is the representation of the
> program in machine language [binary] . . . which the computer
> executes." Id. at § 321.02. 

So if we (Debian) have decided that we treat documentation alike
software, the obvious way to extend this definition (and probably this
is also needed for other things like elisp byte-code) that object code
is also every other representation of the program [binary] that is
executed or interpreted by programs on the computer.

Which would mean that a printed copy would not fall under object code.
And therefore the GPL would not allow distribution on paper at all.

What does the law say about distributing printed copies of things (PDF
files, cool pictures, whatever) that you do not have any license for -
may I print a picture from any website and hang it up on the university
blackboard? 

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 18 Jan 2006 10:31:12 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster writes:
>
> > I wouldn't be too sure that "set" doesn't have a different meaning to
> > lawyers than it has to mathematicians or computer scientists.
> >
> > Anyway, I doubt whether sequence is correct, too - unless you redefine
> > sequence to include conditional execution and loops.
>
> Regardless of what copyright law defines a thing to mean, contracts
> are free to define the terms they use, and where such a definition is
> given directly or via parol evidence, it supercedes (within the scope
> of that contract) the definitions found in statute or copyright office
> policies.

Legal outcome from attempts to override terms of art and legal terms
with some gibberish GNUspeak aside for a moment, the GPL is not
a contract, says Moglen.

Comprehendo?

regards,
alexander.

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Jeremy Hankins]

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> Typically that's the presumption (since object code is "not source"),
>> but that's really a question of law rather than the DFSG (i.e., get a
>> lawyer if it's important to you).
>
> It's important to me as a maintainer of a Debian package with some
> documents licensed with non-free licenses (GFDL, CC "Attribution
> non-commercial blabla") - naturally I'd rather persuade the authors to
> relicense their documentation than remove it.  But I need a thorough
> understanding of the problems of documentation licensing to be able to
> do this.  And of course I can't afford a lawyer, but an opinion of a
> couple of people more acquainted to law stuff than I am would maybe also
> help.  Maybe I should ask the FSF...

Ah, I see.

>> As for the DFSG, I don't see how a
>> license that did not permit distribution of paper copies could be free.
>> Whether it's source or object code, it's still a version of the work,
>> and so the freedoms of the DFSG are still important (possibly with the
>> string of source distribution attached).
>
> I don't think that this is entirely clear.

Hrm.  This sort of goes back to the whole debate about the meaning of
the term "software".  Many (including myself, if it matters) think that
the most reasonable interpretation of "software" is as opposed to
hardware.  This would imply that the paper the document is printed on is
not software, but the words on the page are.  (Of course one could argue
that the printed words are analogue rather than digital, etc., ad
infinitum.  And one could argue that a prohibition against printing is a
restriction placed on the bits on the HD as well.  Thus are flame wars
spawned.)

In the end, of course, not everyone is going to agree.  And frankly, I
think that's the more important issue.  Many people who use debian are
going to assume that they don't suddenly lose the freedoms of the DFSG
just because a document has been printed on paper rather than recorded
on a CD.  And if Debian is going to decide otherwise, it should be as
big and noise-making a decision as the whole bit about documentation
was -- perhaps even louder.  Otherwise, I believe that we would be
violating our commitments to our users.


In so far as we're talking about the GPL, though, the software/hardware
issue doesn't enter into the discussion.  I still think it's quite a
stretch to believe that the GPL gives one the right to restrict paper
copies.

> I have not yet made up my mind on this, so I'm just writing down some
> thoughts here:
>
> - Some people view intellectual property as "bad" (unethical, hindering
>   development, or whatever) in any field, but other Free Software people
>   do not claim this.  For them, it's rather the particular field of
>   "computer usage", with software, documentation, and possibly hardware
>   that makes "Freeness" so important - be it for ethical or for
>   practical reasons - while in other fields - like arts or literature -
>   copyright is acceptable or even welcome.
>
>   Since Debian and the DFSG are about Software, we cannot assume that
>   everybody is of the first type.

I agree -- except that I would note that one could believe that free
licensing for stuff is good (even outside of the computer field) without
thinking that IP is necessarily bad.

> - Software and its documentation is "work in progress" most of the time.
>   While an author might be willing to release a computer-related
>   documentation to the public in its current form, this does not imply
>   that they in fact think the work is fit for publicaton in form of a
>   book, which is much more static, and which many people expect to be
>   much better proof-read, typographically optimized etc. than is usual
>   for a documentation PDF generated from texinfo, xml or the like.
>
>   Furthermore, it's often not clear from the typeset text who is
>   responsible for which content (only available in the CVS/SVN/... log
>   and in source files), a point that might be deemed crucial by authors
>   who have a reputation to loose.  If I start contributing to a widely
>   used documentation project *because* I find its present state
>   inacceptable, I'd rather not see the intermediate product published as
>   a book with my name (among others) on it...
>
>   I doubt that we would be violating the spirit of the DFSG if we
>   allowed authors to restrict printing because of such considerations.

Just because something is a legitimate goal doesn't mean that it's in
keeping with the spirit of the DFSG to write it into a license.  Within
the free software world it is often expected that we use more
community-oriented mechanisms for achieving such ends (e.g., peer
pressure, polite requests, etc.)  By using softer, more nuanced methods
(as opposed to the very hard and blunt tool of licensing) we permit more
freedoms and get more done.

>> Generally the concern with documents goes the other way: folks want 

Re: IBM Public License

[Stephan Michels]

On 18 Jan 2006 10:27:38 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephan Michels writes:
> > I want to package UDDI4J ( http://uddi4j.sourceforge.net/ ), which runs
> > under the IBM Public License Version 1.0 (
> > http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-ipl.html ).
> >
> > Can I get troubles if I package this software for Debian? Is this
> > license approved?
>
> There are packages in main that are under this license -- postfix is
> one example.  Some people (myself included) object to things like the
> waiver of jury trial included in it, but I would not expect you would
> see any problems.

Thank you.

Stephan Michels.

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Michael Poole]

Alexander Terekhov writes:

> On 18 Jan 2006 10:31:12 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Frank Küster writes:
> >
> > > I wouldn't be too sure that "set" doesn't have a different meaning to
> > > lawyers than it has to mathematicians or computer scientists.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I doubt whether sequence is correct, too - unless you redefine
> > > sequence to include conditional execution and loops.
> >
> > Regardless of what copyright law defines a thing to mean, contracts
> > are free to define the terms they use, and where such a definition is
> > given directly or via parol evidence, it supercedes (within the scope
> > of that contract) the definitions found in statute or copyright office
> > policies.
> 
> Legal outcome from attempts to override terms of art and legal terms
> with some gibberish GNUspeak aside for a moment, the GPL is not
> a contract, says Moglen.
> 
> Comprehendo?

Read the freaking archives already.  This is not a new question for
debian-legal.  You put an entirely misplaced emphasis on what the FSF
says about the GPL's nature as a contract or not.  Until you show at a
modicum of research and novel contribution, I will not explain to you
why that is irrelevant.  Likewise, until you bother to abide by the
Debian Mailing List Rules of Conduct[1] -- including the bits about
not spamming, not flaming, and CC'ing people only on request -- I will
not help you understand how the law applies.

Comprende?

Michael Poole

[1]- http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Frank Küster]

Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> In the end, of course, not everyone is going to agree.  And frankly, I
> think that's the more important issue.  Many people who use debian are
> going to assume that they don't suddenly lose the freedoms of the DFSG
> just because a document has been printed on paper rather than recorded
> on a CD.  And if Debian is going to decide otherwise, it should be as
> big and noise-making a decision as the whole bit about documentation
> was -- perhaps even louder.  Otherwise, I believe that we would be
> violating our commitments to our users.

Got your point.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Matthew Garrett]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:24:19AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> What mistakes? Pretty much the entire free software community believes
>> that patch-clause licenses are acceptable. Why do you think that they're
>> not?
> 
> You're asking me to repeat the entire discussion I just had with you and
> Michael, where I explained very explicitly the serious problems of patch
> clauses?  If you've accidentally deleted your mailbox, I'm sure it's in
> the list archives.

No, you've described why they cause practical inconvenience. You haven't
described why everyone else ever was wrong.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/18/06, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (BTW I'm subscribed, no need to Cc)

Setup your Mail-Followup-To as you see fit.

[... GPL would not allow distribution on paper at all ...]

Really? Nobody shall be surprised that it's knows as GNU legal
nonsense.

> What does the law say about distributing printed copies of things (PDF
> files, cool pictures, whatever) that you do not have any license for -
> may I print a picture from any website and hang it up on the university
> blackboard?

Depends. Fair use and right to public display (on a public blackboard)
aside for a moment, if "whatever" was distributed (not merely displayed)
by means of electronic transfer, then a lawfully made tangible copy of
a digitally downloaded work (printed copies) is clearly subject to
distribution under First Sale.

regards,
alexander.

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Matthew Garrett]

Michio Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Is not looking bad more important than getting it right eventually?
> (Start aliasing [EMAIL PROTECTED] to /dev/null: a big BTS looks bad.)

Nngh.

> Another irony. I thought Matthew Garrett usually argued for
> changing views at the drop of a hat. For example, changing
> position and letting the project sell stuff near the end of
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/09/msg00091.html
> even though saying "we used to say that we wouldn't compete
> with debian retailers, but now we've decided that we will"
> looks astonishingly bad.

You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that changing our
minds on things is bad. I'm saying that diverging from the rest of the
community for no good reason looks bad. It's hardly as if patch clauses
were badly understood when the DFSG were written. There's no way you can
claim "Oh, they didn't know what they were talking about". The people
who wrote this document considered the issue and decided that the
practical implications were not sufficiently offensive to avoid
describing them as free.

Since then, the practical freedoms provided by patch clauses have
increased. Altering the DFSG would be a clear redefinition of our stance
on freedom, and there would be no way that anyone could argue that it
was in any way in line with community consensus. Do I think that would
look bad? Yes, I do. The DFSG should reflect reality, like our website
should do.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My preferred name is "you"


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

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Alexander Terekhov]

Plonk.

regards,
alexander.

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Frank Küster]

"Pedro A.D.Rezende" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant.
>> The Copyright Act defines a computer program as"a set of
>> statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
>> a computer in order to bring about a certain result. " 17 U.S.C.
>> § 101.
>
> The copyright act is WRONG.
>
> A computer program can NEVER be "a SET of statements or
> instructions...", a computer program has to understood as "a SEQUENCE
> of statements or instructions...".

Pedro, which definition of object code should I use instead?

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Re: GR: GFDL Position Statement

[Gerfried Fuchs]

Hi!

 Sorry, sent this to the wrong list

- Forwarded message from Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -

* Anthony Towns  [2006-01-18 11:01]:
> There are currently two proposals in discussion on debian-vote regarding
> a position statement on the GNU Free Documentation License. The texts
> are available at http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001, and discussion
> can be found by following:

 Along the same lines of "(3) Why does documentation need to be Free
Software?" I want to ask if not other media like images or music has to
meet the same rules? (though with different reasoning, but same impact)

 I can understand that the "source" for those things might be tricky,
but often images are flattened photoshop files or (with non-free tools)
rendered graphics, or music converted midi files.

 As an example I want to question if I would have to move xblast* to
contrib, because the graphics are rendered with povray, or if there is
no need for it? There are for sure other graphics that fall under the
same thing; at least I can say for xblast that I'm in the good position
to have the povray source available with which the images were rendered.
But would producing them on build-time really raise the quality, moving
xblast* to contrib? If this is done then please think of other packages
with the same "problem", too.

 There is one last point that I really want to raise, though: I guess we
won't have to discuss that our very own beloved swirl logo has a
non-free licence. If we are really going to kick out GFDL documentation
we have to be at least as fair as kicking out our logo from the archive,
too. Otherwise we will just be laughed at, and not fulfilling our own
DFSG, where we won't accept a Debian specific licence in main.

 Please, think about it. Seriously. Don't let this turn into the next
flamewar. If there had been past discussions on either of those topics,
send me along links so I can read up on the reasonings for either
discussion back then to understand it better.

- End forwarded message -

 So long,
Alfie
-- 
Nachdem es SuSE nun endlich geschafft hat, Linux so sehr zu verunstalten, daß
es schlechter als Windows ist, bootet es nun also sogar schon auf der Hardware
von Microsoft.
 -- realborg zu 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Nathanael Nerode]

Frank Kuester wrote:
>Has it been
>discussed, and if yes to what end, whether a printed version (of a
>GPL'ed document) would be "object code" as treated in section 3,

>On the one hand, treating printed copies of the work just the same as
>any digital "compiled" version sounds logical and in the intent of the
>license. 

Well, the draft for GPL v3 says:
>"Object code" means any non-source version of a work.
Everyone seems to like this.
So in GPL v3 it will be very clear that a printed copy is "object code".

Unless you have a perverse copyright holder, I would assume that a printed 
copy qualifies as "object code".

The usual complaint is different: people want to be able to distribute printed 
copies without supplying source.  This can be achieved with GPL+extra 
permissions.

Indeed, an author can, to a certain extent, restrict commercial trade of the 
printed version this way.  A publisher can publish a printed version under 
the GPL, but they have to tuck a CD with the complete source code for the 
book into every copy of the book.  I would say that that would have to 
include all the typefaces used in the book, which would have to be under 
GPL-compatible licenses; and the cover art, likewise; and even the 
specifications for reproducing the binding.  If they don't want to do that 
(and with the current behavior of publishers, I bet most won't want to), they 
need to get separate permission from the author.

I would recommend that authors who wish to supply free documentation but wish 
to effectively restrict commercial trade in printed copies should follow this 
interpretation.


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

Re: Ironies abound

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> It would be useful, before proposing a GR to do so, to have a list of
> all the packages currently in main which would become non-free if this
> clause were abolished, as well as any well-known licenses which might be
> affected.

Did we ever find concrete evidence that TeX comes with a license to
create modified versions under different names? The copyright notice
at the top of tex.web presents only the patch option, and
/usr/share/doc/tetex-bin/copyright is not of much help.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "Ambiguous cases are defined as those for which the
   compiler being used finds a legitimate interpretation
   which is different from that which the user had in mind."


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

Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Nathanael Nerode]

Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d 
after an hour or two's thought.

The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather 
than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting 
errors.  By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative 
works, it causes endless trouble.  Instead, I attempted to rewrite this as a 
restriction which could be imposed on the recipients of the license.

So here it is:
"7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to 
have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and 
receive copies of the work."

This leverages the careful definition of "propagate" up top, so that it avoids 
restricting any acitivities which do not require a copyright license.

A restriction along these lines would mean that
(1) it imposes no restrictions on the *writers* of derivative works
(2) If you've already distributed (or offered to distribute) the work to all 
its users (the normal case and the troublesome one for the original clause), 
you have no additional obligations
(3) making the program available for users over the Internet (or on a local 
server) -- if and only if that requires a copyright license, which it 
probably does -- requires that you provide access to the source code to those 
users, according to the usual GPL v3 clauses regarding distributing copies.

What do other people think of this?  It's sort of a forced distribution 
clause, but it only forces distribution to the people you're already allowing 
to use the program.  If it's considered acceptable, we could push to have 
this replace the proposed (7d).


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

Re: GPL v3 Draft

[Joe Buck]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:35:55AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Moglen is a liar. And Stallman too.

*plonk*


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

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 04:08:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You're asking me to repeat the entire discussion I just had with you and
> > Michael, where I explained very explicitly the serious problems of patch
> > clauses?  If you've accidentally deleted your mailbox, I'm sure it's in
> > the list archives.
> 
> No, you've described why they cause practical inconvenience. You haven't
> described why everyone else ever was wrong.

No, I've described why they practically *prohibit* code reuse.  The only
counterarguments I've ever seen are:

 - "code reuse isn't important" (often thinly veiled as eg. "you don't
   really need to reuse code, you can always rewrite it"), and
 - "if you really want to reuse code, you can create a complex, massively
   impractical patching system to handle it" (and I'm not convinced that's
   even possible, when two separate patch-clause code bits end up mashed
   closely together).

Now you're not even giving an argument; you're merely appealing to the
crowd.  Since it would take a GR to fix this, anyway, that's not very
interesting; if the crowd really does agree with you that code reuse
isn't very important, such a GR would fail.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


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

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/18/06, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Well, the draft for GPL v3 says:
> >"Object code" means any non-source version of a work.
> Everyone seems to like this.
> So in GPL v3 it will be very clear that a printed copy is "object code".

How fascinating. The courts will enjoy this amusing insanity too.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Let the press know, Nerode. You can make some $$$.

Re: GPL v3 Draft

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/18/06, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:35:55AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Moglen is a liar. And Stallman too.
>
> *plonk*

And how long is your plonk? Longer than Pool's one?

regards,
alexander.

Re: Bug#348728: ITP: php-net-imap -- PHP PEAR module implementing IMAP protocol

[Charles Fry]

> * Package name: php-net-imap
>   Version : 1.0.3
>   Upstream Author : Damian Alejandro Fernandez Sosa
>   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://pear.php.net/package/Net_IMAP
> * License : php license

You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1]
your package will be automatically rejected because it uses the PHP
License. Several weeks ago I emailed the FTP Masters[2], requesting that
they accept the PHP Licence for all PHP Group software, backed up by
extensive debian-legal discussion. They were explicitely invited to
either modify their rejection criteria, or continue the debian-legal
debate, both of which they have failed to do. I am now re-extending that
invitation.

Charles

   1. http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
   2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00066.html

-- 
A guy
Who wants
To middle-aisle it
Must never scratch
His little violet
Burma-Shave
http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1947/a_guy


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Josh Triplett]

Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather 
> than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting 
> errors.  By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative 
> works, it causes endless trouble.

That perfectly describes my problem with the clause as written.

> Instead, I attempted to rewrite this as a 
> restriction which could be imposed on the recipients of the license.
> 
> So here it is:
> "7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to 
> have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and 
> receive copies of the work."
> 
> This leverages the careful definition of "propagate" up top, so that it 
> avoids 
> restricting any acitivities which do not require a copyright license.
> 
> A restriction along these lines would mean that
> (1) it imposes no restrictions on the *writers* of derivative works
> (2) If you've already distributed (or offered to distribute) the work to all 
> its users (the normal case and the troublesome one for the original clause), 
> you have no additional obligations
> (3) making the program available for users over the Internet (or on a local 
> server) -- if and only if that requires a copyright license, which it 
> probably does -- requires that you provide access to the source code to those 
> users, according to the usual GPL v3 clauses regarding distributing copies.
> 
> What do other people think of this?  It's sort of a forced distribution 
> clause, but it only forces distribution to the people you're already allowing 
> to use the program.  If it's considered acceptable, we could push to have 
> this replace the proposed (7d).

I believe this clause addresses the issue perfectly, and I agree with
proposing it as a replacement.

- Josh Triplett


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> "7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to 
> have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and 
> receive copies of the work."

This sounds a lot better. I would suggest using "work based on the
Program" to re-use that definition as well. Also, how about just
"to receive copies" and add "under the terms of this License".

Or maybe refer to the article that allows you to make copies.
Then you nicely catch all the other requirements that you have to
fulfil (storage medium, written offer, etc). 

And this just occurs to me: do I need to have a world-readable
/usr/src if I let people log into my system and use a tool that
is GPLv3 with 7d enabled? 

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: Bug#348728: ITP: php-net-imap -- PHP PEAR module implementing IMAP protocol

[Steffen Joeris]

> You should be aware that per the current REJECT_FAQ [1]
> your package will be automatically rejected because it uses the PHP
> License. Several weeks ago I emailed the FTP Masters[2], requesting that
> they accept the PHP Licence for all PHP Group software, backed up by
> extensive debian-legal discussion. They were explicitely invited to
> either modify their rejection criteria, or continue the debian-legal
> debate, both of which they have failed to do. I am now re-extending that
> invitation.
>
> Charles
>
>1. http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
>2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00066.html
Hi

Thanks for the information. I haven't noticed it before because I saw various 
packages in Debian using the PHP license.
I told my sponsor to wait with the upload. I will ask him for upload when PHP 
license is DFSG compatible or tell him to drop it if the project disagree 
with the PHP license. Nevertheless i think the project should make a 
decision. Waiting for it now ...

Greetings and thanks for info
Steffen


pgp7KwJFCC2mr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/18/06, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Also, how about just "to receive copies" and add "under the terms
> of this License".

Sneaky. But it won't help.

GPLv3 9.[5] Not a Contract. ("You are not required to accept this
License in order to receive a copy of the Program.")

regards,
alexander.

Re: Ironies abound

[Josh Triplett]

Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>It would be useful, before proposing a GR to do so, to have a list of
>>all the packages currently in main which would become non-free if this
>>clause were abolished, as well as any well-known licenses which might be
>>affected.
> 
> Did we ever find concrete evidence that TeX comes with a license to
> create modified versions under different names? The copyright notice
> at the top of tex.web presents only the patch option, and
> /usr/share/doc/tetex-bin/copyright is not of much help.

To the best of my knowledge, TeX is explicitly in the public domain, and
the only restrictions on it are based on the trademark on the name
"TeX".  Trademarks cannot legally affect functional elements, in order
to avoid abusing trademarks, which are perpetual as long as they
continue to be used and enforced, to create other perpetual
restrictions.  For example, if you make it a requirement to pass a
trademarked name to a function in order to use it, people may do so
without a trademark license from you.  Filenames are a functional
element.  Therefore, a trademark alone cannot restrict the use of a
given filename.  (Not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc.)

Some searching around led to an article "The Future of TeX and
Metafont", written by Knuth, a copy of which is available at
.  From this article:
> I have put these systems into the public domain so that people
> everywhere can use the ideas freely if they wish.
[...]
> anybody can make use of my programs in whatever way they wish, as
> long as they do not use the names TeX, Metafont, or Computer Modern.
[followed by conditions for using the names based on a test suite]

Further searching reveals several sources that indicate the American
Mathematical Society obtained a trademark on the name TeX for the
purposes of enforcing those conditions.  Given the limitations on the
scope of such a trademark, I don't believe this can render the program
non-free.  In the worst case, it might be necessary to expunge
non-functional references to the names before making modifications.

As far as LaTeX goes, the LPPL has been fixed, though there is still a
need to do a license audit to check for packages which add additional
restrictions.

- Josh Triplett


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Clause 7d

[Walter Landry]

Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d 
> after an hour or two's thought.
> 
> The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather 
> than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting 
> errors.  By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative 
> works, it causes endless trouble.  Instead, I attempted to rewrite this as a 
> restriction which could be imposed on the recipients of the license.
> 
> So here it is:
> "7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to 
> have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and 
> receive copies of the work."

If all you are trying to do is make the clause more palatable, then I
agree that this is an improvement.  But I still think it is not free.
Please define "user".  In particular, consider these mails

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00805.html
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00856.html

Cheers,
Walter


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

Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Matthew Palmer]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:52:39AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Well, I did devise a potentially Free alternative for the infamous clause 7d 
> after an hour or two's thought.
> 
> The key point here was that the clause suffered from specifying means rather 
> than ends, which we have diagnosed as a major source of license drafting 
> errors.  By restricting the functionality of the program and all derivative 
> works, it causes endless trouble.  Instead, I attempted to rewrite this as a 
> restriction which could be imposed on the recipients of the license.
> 
> So here it is:
> "7d. They may require that propagation of a covered work which causes it to 
> have users other than You, must enable all users of the work to make and 
> receive copies of the work."
> 
> This leverages the careful definition of "propagate" up top, so that it 
> avoids 
> restricting any acitivities which do not require a copyright license.

Neat, although a little hard to understand at first without the context of
what it's referring to (Affero-like clauses).  I certainly like it a lot
more than the original, though, for all of the reasons you cited.

> What do other people think of this?  It's sort of a forced distribution 
> clause, but it only forces distribution to the people you're already allowing 
> to use the program.  If it's considered acceptable, we could push to have 
> this replace the proposed (7d).

I like it, and I think it should be definitely be submitted to the FSF for
consideration.

- Matt


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

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:18:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> But in that case, you might find it more fruitful to discuss this clause
> with the FSF itself rather than with debian-legal.

Well, I'm not discussing these things here to try to get the weight of "this
would make Debian call the GPLv3 non-free", since the GFDL showed just how
much weight that holds with the FSF.  I do want to know what others here
think about these things, though, and to let anyone who agrees with these
things to lend their voice to fixing them.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


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

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Pedro A.D.Rezende]

Frank Küster wrote:

"Pedro A.D.Rezende" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Alexander Terekhov wrote:


Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant.
The Copyright Act defines a computer program as"a set of
statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
a computer in order to bring about a certain result. " 17 U.S.C.
§ 101.


The copyright act is WRONG.

A computer program can NEVER be "a SET of statements or
instructions...", a computer program has to understood as "a SEQUENCE
of statements or instructions...".



I wouldn't be too sure that "set" doesn't have a different meaning to
lawyers than it has to mathematicians or computer scientists.

Anyway, I doubt whether sequence is correct, too - unless you redefine
sequence to include conditional execution and loops.



Apologizing in advance for the length of this reply, I may say I'm
afraid this thread is only getting noisier.

Lawyers and lawmakers ought not pretend to be writing words for which
meanings have been settled for millenia ( SET, SEQUENCE), to mean 
differently in their writings just when their incompentence to use them 
gets exposure.


About the above doubt, please consider:

An instruction, whether jumpable (such as 'goto', 'if', 'loop') or 
non-jumpable (such as 'move_data', 'add_integers'), is an element from a 
finite set of instructions defined by a model of hardware or by a lower 
level language. That is, defined by objects that give expression to a 
computer program in their corresponding object code. Such a set of 
instructions is defined by rules on how instructions can be coded by 
bits (syntactic rules), and rules on how instructions cause the object 
(in case of low level language, an interpreter program) to behave while 
interpreting instances of these instructions (semantic rules).


The syntax for a jumpable instruction is just like the syntax for any
other instruction: it says that an instance of the instruction is to be 
formed by a certain sequence of bits, the identity and lengtht of which 
can be determined from inspection. An object code is formed by the 
finite set of instructions (sequence of bits) obeying the object's 
syntactic rules, plus the semantic rules. The semantic rules are those 
rules which tell how instances of such instructions shall be interpreted 
by one such object.


An instruction is determined to jump, or not to jump, only at the 
semantic level, by semantic rules. If a semantic rule dermines that some 
instance of a jumpable instruction, while being interpreted, is not to 
jump, the next instructon to be interpreted shall be, like with 
non-jumpable instructions, the following instruction. The concept of 
'following instruction' comes as a feature of the von-Neumann 
architecture, used to build the commodity hardware in use since the 
begining of digital programmable computers.


Thus, for the purpose of this discussion (author's right to 
distributable software), the rules of an object code assume that a 
program is formed by a SEQUENCE of instructions. Since the semantic 
rules for jumpable instructions have to refer to positions where they 
are to jump if the instance's context so determines, this can only be 
achieved by references to marks or distances (in bytes) over the 
sequence of instructions. Therefore, in the formation of an object code, 
adherence to syntactic rules, which determine those marks and distances 
through the sequence, have to precede the interpretation of semantic 
rules, which refer to them.


Therefore, in the von-Neumann architecture (today's commodity computers) 
the sequencing of instructions can not be extricated from the concept of 
'computer program', a fact that can be tested as follows: what happens 
if I show you a bag filled with bits (a lawyer's definition of 'SET of 
instructions'?), and tell you "this is a program in object code", and 
ask you "show me the jumps!". What can you do? Without knowing what 
object that code is for, you (or anyone else, for that matter), nothing.


You can not tell which instances of instructions in that bag may cause, 
or not cause, the execution of the program to jump when intepreted. In 
fact, you can neither tell if an instruction is jumpable or 
non-jumpable. Actually, you can not even tell where an instance of 
instruction begins or ends. You, or any object, can only hope to do any 
of these things if the bag's content is first parsed into a sequence of 
instances of well-formed instructions, if the object is a commodity 
hardware or computer language used at large since the begining of 
digital programmable computers.


Thus, in such a context, any object code pressuposes, at a minimum, that 
a program written to be interpreted by its objects shall be construed as 
a (finite) sequence of instances of instructions, from the (finite) set 
of syntactically well-formed instrucions. Refering to computer programs 
by its form or expression, that is, as sequences of instances of 
instructions from

Re: Clause 7d (was Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/18/06, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...}
> What do other people think of this?

I think the GPLv3 is great. It's perfect impotence pill for (ordinary
contractual) stuff like OSL, IPL, CPL and whatnot the FSF is going to
deem now "compatible".

The OSI approval (I just pray that someone submits it) will be fun.

regards,
alexander.

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/18/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...

Hey, I'm the troll here. Go away.

Seriously (sort of), I just wonder how you define a SEQUENCE, Prof.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "author's right" has really little to do with distribution. First Sale,
y'know.

Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/19/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/18/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...
>
> Hey, I'm the troll here. Go away.
>
> Seriously (sort of), I just wonder how you define a SEQUENCE, Prof.

I guess our Prof has a lecture.

Just to save Prof's time: once you add concurrency into play (and
copyright concurrent computer programs), an ordered set of
instructions becomes pretty unordered.

regards,
alexander.

Re: GPL v3 Draft

[Francesco Poli]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:41:05 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:

> Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > Hi Glenn!
> > You wrote:
> >>>3. Digital Restrictions Management.
> >>>
> >>>As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors
> >>>technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and
> >>>share copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be
> >>>interpreted in light of this specific declaration of the licensor's
> >>>intent.  Regardless of any
> >>>other provision of this License, no permission is given to
> >>>distribute covered works that illegally invade users' privacy
[...]
> > IMO, this is a clear violation of DFSG 6.  If we allow terrorists to
> > use our code, and allow it to be used in biological weapons
> > research, clearly also black hat hackers must be allowed to use it
> > to produce spyware.
> 
> It seems particularly hypocritical in light of
> :

It's indeed a hypocrisy masterpiece...  :-(


-- 
:-(   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


pgp2ipqcjVbUB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GPL v3 Draft

[Francesco Poli]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:13:18 +0100 Jacobo Tarrio wrote:

> > d) Distribute the Object Code by offering access to copy it
> > from a designated place, and offer equivalent access to copy
> > the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place.
> > You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source
> > along with the Object Code.
> 
>  It's nice that they include this because it's theoretically not
>  permitted
> in GPLv2, and that's how Debian (and everyone else) distributes its
> stuff :)

It was in fact permitted by GPLv2...
See GPLv2, section 3., last paragraph:

 | If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
 | access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
 | access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
 | distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
 | compelled to copy the source along with the object code.


-- 
:-(   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


pgpL05gwAHZ0k.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GPL v3 Draft

[Francesco Poli]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:26:47 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:

> I'm in favor, in principle, of being allowed to make anonymous
> changes.

So do I!
The right to make anonymous changes is indeed an important one.

-- 
:-(   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


pgpNeVvC9GEog.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GPL v3 Draft

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 1/19/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > 
> It's indeed a hypocrisy masterpiece...  :-(

Welcome to the club. Free as in not GNU.

regards,
alexander.

When can we make some progress on the logo and trademarks? (was Re: GR: GFDL Position Statement

[Nathanael Nerode]

Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>  There is one last point that I really want to raise, though: I guess we
> won't have to discuss that our very own beloved swirl logo has a
> non-free licence. If we are really going to kick out GFDL documentation
> we have to be at least as fair as kicking out our logo from the archive,
> too. Otherwise we will just be laughed at, and not fulfilling our own
> DFSG, where we won't accept a Debian specific licence in main.

We have discussed this.  -legal agreed that the license should be changed, and 
has proposed multiple alternative licenses.  The change to any of those 
licenses was agreed to by the logo's creator, and by the DPL and various 
other people.

This was going to be delayed until a proper trademark policy was in place.  
-legal came up with a pretty solid plan for what we wanted for a trademark 
policy; we wanted some review by a lawyer with some knowledge of trademark 
law.  We haven't heard back since.  For *some reason*, although we've agreed 
on all of this for *years*, it's stalled somewhere where we can't do anything 
about it.

I've Cc:ed this to the DPL in hopes of getting something kickstarted, or at 
least of getting a status report.  As far as I can tell, -legal has done its 
job, and only incomprehensible institutional delays are preventing this from 
actually happening.  Yes, it ticks me off a bit.

If a review of what we decided on is needed, I can whip one up.


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

Re: GR: GFDL Position Statement

[Nathanael Nerode]

Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>  Along the same lines of "(3) Why does documentation need to be Free
> Software?" I want to ask if not other media like images or music has to
> meet the same rules? (though with different reasoning, but same impact)
Yes, it does.

>  I can understand that the "source" for those things might be tricky,
> but often images are flattened photoshop files or (with non-free tools)
> rendered graphics, or music converted midi files.
Yes, these are classic "must provide source to be free software" cases.

>  As an example I want to question if I would have to move xblast* to
> contrib, because the graphics are rendered with povray, or if there is
> no need for it?
If you wished to modify the graphics, would you want to do so with the povray 
source?  If the answer is "yes", then the graphics are 'contrib' material.  
If the answer is "no, I'd use the rendered files", then the povray source 
should not be considered "source" for our purposes, and the rendered files 
should be.

Are the graphics essential to the normal use of the package?  If the answer is 
"no", then 'contrib' material can go in the package even though the package 
is in 'main'.

> There are for sure other graphics that fall under the 
> same thing; at least I can say for xblast that I'm in the good position
> to have the povray source available with which the images were rendered.
If you did not have the source of the images, then the images would be 
"non-free".

> But would producing them on build-time really raise the quality, moving
> xblast* to contrib?
You don't actually have to produce them at build-time if there's a good reason 
not to (such as avoiding spurious changes due to incremental changes in 
povray); consider 'configure' scripts and the like, for which the generated 
code is generally shipped in the source tarball along with the source code.  
You do have to ship the source files in the source tarball.

> If this is done then please think of other packages 
> with the same "problem", too.
Thought of long long ago.


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

Re: GPL v3 Draft

[Nathanael Nerode]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Anthony Towns  wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 02:15:09PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > > No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological 
protection
> > > > measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a 
system
> > > > to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at 
least
> > > > for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other
> > > > software capable of accessing the same data.
> > > It sounds like this means "if your GPL application accesses data, you 
grant
> > > a GPL license to every other application that accesses the data".
> > 
> > Not quite -- it says "you give general permission for other applications
> > to be distributed under the GPL". Which means that when someone does
> > reverse engineer your stuff, and puts it in a GPLed app, you can't then
> > say "You don't have permission to do that because you're violationg  > patents|the DMCA>" -- because you've already given them the permission
> > you claim they don't have.
> 
> I am not disagreeing with you here, but my main issue with this
> paragraph in the license is that it can just not be true.  GPG is an
> effective way of encrypting communications, and having the license say
> otherwise does not change that.

OK, there's a subtle issue here which could be cleared up with a small change 
in the license.

"Effective technological protection measure" is supposed to mean "Effective 
technological protection measure for preventing copying or distribution".  
This is what it means in the DMCA, which is what the clause is referring to.  
GPG is not in fact an effective way of doing that, since an encrypted copy is 
still a copy (and can be decrypted given some computing power).

What constitutes an effective technological protection measure for preventing 
copying or distribution?  Well, I suppose at first glance a locked safe might 
be.  Or a password-protected site might be.  There is obviously no such thing 
as an "effective technological protection measure" which prevents copying or 
distribution of data *while* providing access to it.

I'm not even sure there is such a thing as an "effective technological 
protection measure" for preventing copying and distribution *at all*.   Safes 
can be cracked (and if you own the safe, it's your right to do so, unless you 
have a contract with someone where you agreed not to); password-protected 
sites can be accessed by the hardware administrator (who again usually has 
the right to do so).

So, if clearly restricted to measures for preventing copying and distribution, 
this clause may in actual fact be *true*.


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

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Nathanael Nerode]

Glenn Maynard wrote:
> No, I've described why they practically *prohibit* code reuse.  The only
> counterarguments I've ever seen are:
> 
>  - "code reuse isn't important" (often thinly veiled as eg. "you don't
>really need to reuse code, you can always rewrite it"), and
>  - "if you really want to reuse code, you can create a complex, massively
>impractical patching system to handle it" (and I'm not convinced that's
>even possible, when two separate patch-clause code bits end up mashed
>closely together).
Incidentally, I think you're right about this; I don't really see how to 
distribute a single file in the form of a patch to TeX and a patch to, say, 
an old release of Qt (under their patch clause) simultaneously.  If I put the 
Qt code into the patch to TeX, I violate the Qt license; if I put the TeX 
code into the patch to Qt, I violate the TeX license; if I do neither, I 
violate both licenses.

Have you heard argument three?
"A new license incompatible with all other free software licenses practically 
prohibits code reuse in the same way.  This sucks, but we consider it Free 
(while discouraging it).  Patch clauses suck in the exact same way, so we 
should consider them Free too (while discouraging them)."




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

Re: GR: GFDL Position Statement

[Glenn Maynard]

You might consider putting a line of blank space between quotes and
your reply, like everyone else does; it makes it easier to read.

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:08PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >  I can understand that the "source" for those things might be tricky,
> > but often images are flattened photoshop files or (with non-free tools)
> > rendered graphics, or music converted midi files.
> Yes, these are classic "must provide source to be free software" cases.

Er, no they're not--"classic", that is.  Whether we want source for them
or not, it's an issue that's only been given much attention relatively
recently, so let's not start calling it "classic".  Programs are the
classic case.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


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

Re: Translation of a license

[Anthony DeRobertis]

Tobias Toedter wrote:

> "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify\n"
> "it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by\n"
> "the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at\n"
> "your option) any later version.\n"
> "\n"
> "This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but\n"
> "WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of\n"
> "MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU\n"
> "General Public License, /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, for more details\n"

This isn't the license, its just "an announcement including an
appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or
else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may
redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user
how to view a copy of this License." [GPL 2c].

Nothing about 2c says this notice must be in English, and indeed
considering the purpose of 2c, I'd suspect it *should* be translated.

I agree with Henning Makholm here.


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

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

[Glenn Maynard]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:14:03PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Have you heard argument three?
> "A new license incompatible with all other free software licenses practically 
> prohibits code reuse in the same way.  This sucks, but we consider it Free 
> (while discouraging it).  Patch clauses suck in the exact same way, so we 
> should consider them Free too (while discouraging them)."

The difference is that such a license is at least compatible with itself: if
you put your software under the same license, or something almost guaranteed 
to be compatible (eg. public domain), you can reuse the code.  Patch clauses
aren't even "compatible" with themselves: putting your work under the same
license doesn't fix it.

Also, a license incompatible with other licenses wouldn't cause problems like
"can't put the code in CVS".  I have trouble viewing any software under a
license that prohibits the use of ordinary source control as a valuable
contribution to free software.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


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

Re: GPL v3 Draft

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> "Effective technological protection measure" is supposed to mean "Effective 
> technological protection measure for preventing copying or distribution".  

I think the DMCA actually speaks about "access to the work"
(17 U.S.C. 1201):

   (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide,
   or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device,
   component, or part thereof, that--

   (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing
   a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work
   protected under this title;
   (...)

And "access" is defined such that I don't think it covers
copying of the protected work:

   (3) As used in this subsection--

   (A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a
   scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to
   avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological
   measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;  and
   (B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a
   work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation,
   requires the application of information, or a process or a
   treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain
   access to the work.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17usc1201.htm

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]