Re: Ironies abound
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
Our copyright file is a nightmare, we really *ought* to sort out which
file is under which copyright and license, and document that. I still
hope we'll manage it for etch. As for tex.web, the notice at the top is
misleading, it seems to assume that copying means that the name is
unchanged. Later in the file, it is written:
,
| If this program is changed, the resulting system should not be called
| `\TeX'; the official name `\TeX' by itself is reserved
| for software systems that are fully compatible with each other.
| A special test suite called the ``\.{TRIP} test'' is available for
| helping to determine whether a particular implementation deserves to be
| known as `\TeX' [cf.~Stanford Computer Science report CS1027,
| November 1984].
`
Some searching around led to an article The Future of TeX and
Metafont, written by Knuth, a copy of which is available at
http://www.tug.org/tex-archive/digests/tex-mag/v5.n1. 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]
The wikipedia article for TeX is also a starting point, it leads to a
different article by DEK. It's split into two pdf files, the beginning
is in http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb07-2/tb15gordon.pdf, the
interesting part in
http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb07-2/tb15knut.pdf where he also
says:
,
| All of the methods described in these books are in the public domain;
| thus anybody can freely use any of the ideas. The only thing I'm
| retaining control of is the names, TeX and METAFONT: products that go
| by this name are are obliged to conform to the standard. If any
| changes are made, I won't complain, as long as the changed systems are
| not called TeX or METAFONT.9
`
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.
Do you have links or references for this trademark thingie? I read it
so many times that I tend to believe it's true, but never found and
conclusive evidence...
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.
... and for packages with non-free docs. Any help is appreciated.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Bug#348728: ITP: php-net-imap -- PHP PEAR module implementing IMAP protocol
Le Mer 18 Janvier 2006 20:58, Steffen Joeris a écrit : 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 the project decision is clear IMHO : read the php license, you'll see it can only apply to the main and official PHP distribution. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpFSGfAYL6Pj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: When can we make some progress on the logo and trademarks?
* Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-18 22:39]: 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. We have discussed this. -legal agreed that the license should be changed, and has proposed multiple alternative licenses. When in about was this? How long will we have to wait? Why do we think this might happen earlier than the GFDL come up with a revision of the licence that is DFSG free? Why do we apply a different reasoning to the clearly non-free logo, where the non-freeness of the GFDL needed to be discussed so throughly? This was going to be delayed until a proper trademark policy was in place. How long should that be delayed? Why don't we delay the GFDL moval to non-free until a proper GFDL v2 or whatever is in place? What makes us think that this would happen earlier? I think it got delayed too long. I ask for actions now: Either get the packages that contain the non-free swirl into non-free alongside with the GFDL movals, or none. Because doing the one and not the other will make us just a big laugh of hypocrites. We can't afford to work that strongly against our own DFSG just because the logo is from us and the documents are from the FSF. -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. Since when? Sorry, but I asked for pointers so I can read up on purpose... 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. Ah, for years. Great. And still within this period we managed to concluded that GFDL documents have to leave but the logo still is able to stand? Don't you think that this is a bit... erm... absurd? If a review of what we decided on is needed, I can whip one up. Yes, please. Alfie -- rm_-rf_ The real value of KDE is that they inspired and push the development of GNOME :-) -- #Debian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
When can we make some progress on the logo and trademarks? (was Re: GR: GFDL Position Statement
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. There was a draft trademark licence posted to the spi-trademark list a few months ago. I've no idea of its status now. Not all current licensed users of the debian mark would comply with it today IMO. That might be part of the reason for delay. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] compatible with itself The GPL is incompatible with itself. quote*** A recent press conference of the Free Software Foundation confirmed the rumors that the GNU General Public License was found to be incompatible with itself. This newly discovered fact may actually cause a lot of disorder in the free software world in which most programs and libraries are licensed under this license. Richard Stallman, chairman of the FSF, called upon developers to immediately exempt GPL-licensed software from the GPL, as far as linking them with GPL programs is concerned. We have already made sure all GNU software and every other software that is licensed to the Free Software Foundation would be ad-hoc compatible with itself. However we need other developers to do the same for their software, Stallman said. Eben Moglen, the FSF's attorney outlined the subsequent steps that his organization will take to overcome this crisis. The first step would be releasing a Modified General Public License (or MGPL for short) that will be compatible with the GPL and with itself as well as with all other licenses that the GPL is already compatible with. It will be labeled the GPL version 2.1, thus allowing developers to convert their software to it. He noted that care would be taken to make sure the upcoming GPL version 3.0 will be compatible with itself, as well as the MGPL. For the time being, though, there is an explosion of commentary, confusion and otherwise bad temper about the newly formed situation. Eric S. Raymond, the famous Open Source Guru notes: This is one of the greatest blows to the Open Source world, I have yet encountered. I have already exempted all of my own software from the GPL in this regard, but there is a lot of other software out there, and many of its authors are not very communicative. Bill Gates, Microsoft's co-founder, on the other hand, seems to find the situation very amusing: I said times and again, that viral licenses such as the GPL are a bad idea, and many open-source advocates disagreed. Now they see that even making sure one's license is compatible with itself, is hard to do when you open that can of worms. The integrity of many software projects whose license is the GPL and yet contain works licensed by several developers is in jeopardy. The Linux kernel is a prominent example of such a case. In a post to its mailing list, Linus Torvalds commented that, in their case, it was not an issue. My interpretation of the GPL is already quite unusual, so I'll simply rule that I also interpret the GPL as compatible with itself. /quote regards, alexander. ***) Posted by Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01
Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire? On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:33:41PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander [...] Alexander compatible with itself Alexander Alexander The GPL is incompatible with itself. Alexander Alexander quote*** Alexander Alexander A recent press conference of the Free Software Foundation confirmed Alexander the rumors that the GNU General Public License was found to be Alexander incompatible with itself. This newly discovered fact may actually Alexander cause a lot of disorder in the free software world in which most Alexander programs and libraries are licensed under this license. Alexander Alexander Richard Stallman, chairman of the FSF, called upon developers to Alexander immediately exempt GPL-licensed software from the GPL, as far as Alexander linking them with GPL programs is concerned. We have already made Alexander sure all GNU software and every other software that is licensed to Alexander the Free Software Foundation would be ad-hoc compatible with itself. Alexander However we need other developers to do the same for their software, Alexander Stallman said. Alexander Alexander Eben Moglen, the FSF's attorney outlined the subsequent steps that Alexander his organization will take to overcome this crisis. The first step Alexander would be releasing a Modified General Public License (or MGPL for Alexander short) that will be compatible with the GPL and with itself as well Alexander as with all other licenses that the GPL is already compatible with. Alexander It will be labeled the GPL version 2.1, thus allowing developers to Alexander convert their software to it. He noted that care would be taken to Alexander make sure the upcoming GPL version 3.0 will be compatible with Alexander itself, as well as the MGPL. Alexander Alexander For the time being, though, there is an explosion of commentary, Alexander confusion and otherwise bad temper about the newly formed situation. Alexander Eric S. Raymond, the famous Open Source Guru notes: This is one of Alexander the greatest blows to the Open Source world, I have yet encountered. Alexander I have already exempted all of my own software from the GPL in this Alexander regard, but there is a lot of other software out there, and many of Alexander its authors are not very communicative. Alexander Alexander Bill Gates, Microsoft's co-founder, on the other hand, seems to Alexander find the situation very amusing: I said times and again, that Alexander viral licenses such as the GPL are a bad idea, and many open-source Alexander advocates disagreed. Now they see that even making sure one's Alexander license is compatible with itself, is hard to do when you open that Alexander can of worms. Alexander Alexander The integrity of many software projects whose license is the GPL and Alexander yet contain works licensed by several developers is in jeopardy. The Alexander Linux kernel is a prominent example of such a case. In a post to its Alexander mailing list, Linus Torvalds commented that, in their case, it was Alexander not an issue. My interpretation of the GPL is already quite unusual, Alexander so I'll simply rule that I also interpret the GPL as compatible with Alexander itself. Alexander Alexander /quote Alexander Alexander regards, Alexander alexander. Alexander Alexander ***) Posted by Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01 Alexander -- Yorick signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#348728: ITP: php-net-imap -- PHP PEAR module implementing IMAP protocol
2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00066.html snip the project decision is clear IMHO : read the php license, you'll see it can only apply to the main and official PHP distribution. Please read the message to debian-legal that I originally referenced. It outlines recent changes to the PHP License which make it equally fit for PHP itself and for PHP Group software. While there are some lingering questions on debian-legal as to the freeness of the PHP License for anything (including PHP), it seems clear that the new license can be equally applied to PHP Group software as to PHP itself. Inasmuch as Debian currently accepts the PHP License for PHP, I am requesting that per the recent changes it also be accepted for PHP Group software (or outright rejected for everything). cheers, Charles -- When better Shaving brushes Are made We'll still shave Without their aid Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1941/when_better signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
On 1/19/06, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire? A troll hunter. regards, alexander.
Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
On 1/19/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] compatible with itself The GPL is incompatible with itself. [ ... Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01 ...] Beside that, http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/09/22/gpl3.html?page=2 RMS: - Even small changes from version 2 of the GPL will result in an incompatible license. Two slightly different licenses, each saying that modified versions of a program must be distributed under the same license, are inevitably incompatible. That's why we suggest that programs permit use of future versions of the GPL. It is the only way they can migrate. - regards, alexander.
Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire? A clue-by-four, the same as used for top-post/whole-quoters. (ObSerious: please stop feeding the troll, please follow the code of conduct and no top-posting. That means you.) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
Hands Off Yorick! On 1/19/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire? A clue-by-four, the same as used for top-post/whole-quoters. (ObSerious: please stop feeding the troll, please follow the code of conduct and no top-posting. That means you.) -- 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] regards, alexander.
Question on GPL compliance
Hi all, I'm looking for ways to comply with the GPL without the 3-year requirement (I don't know where I'll be in 3 years). Suppose I have an online store that sells CDs of GPL software. People buy the CD and we ship it to them. One obvious way to comply with the GPL is to always send a second CD with the sources. Now, here's another idea. Suppose that when the user clicks buy they get a message: would you like the sources CD? (extra $2). If they click yes we package it too. If they click no we don't, and never again have to worry about the sources because we did give them a chance. And because the offer was for a CD, it is an equivalent medium. In your non-lawyer opinion, is this an appropriate use of the GPL? Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question on GPL compliance
Daniel Carrera writes: Hi all, I'm looking for ways to comply with the GPL without the 3-year requirement (I don't know where I'll be in 3 years). Suppose I have an online store that sells CDs of GPL software. People buy the CD and we ship it to them. One obvious way to comply with the GPL is to always send a second CD with the sources. Now, here's another idea. Suppose that when the user clicks buy they get a message: would you like the sources CD? (extra $2). If they click yes we package it too. If they click no we don't, and never again have to worry about the sources because we did give them a chance. And because the offer was for a CD, it is an equivalent medium. In your non-lawyer opinion, is this an appropriate use of the GPL? Section 3 of the GPL does not seem to permit that: 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. Shipping a CD is not offering access to copy from a designated place, so an equivalent offer is not relevant. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question on GPL compliance
Michael Poole wrote: Section 3 of the GPL does not seem to permit that: 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. Shipping a CD is not offering access to copy from a designated place, so an equivalent offer is not relevant. Alright, thanks. I guess we'll ship two CDs then. I am very risk adverse and I don't want to worry about the sources. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question on GPL compliance
But you know? This also affects selling CDs at a conference. If you are at a confernece giving out CDs, you are not offering access to copy. So giving them the option to burn a source CD for them wouldn't count. Correct? Daniel. Michael Poole wrote: Section 3 of the GPL does not seem to permit that: 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. Shipping a CD is not offering access to copy from a designated place, so an equivalent offer is not relevant. Michael Poole -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question on GPL compliance
Daniel Carrera writes: But you know? This also affects selling CDs at a conference. If you are at a confernece giving out CDs, you are not offering access to copy. So giving them the option to burn a source CD for them wouldn't count. Correct? I would distinguish that case by the cost. If your web site has a checkbox that the user can check to receive the source CD at no additional cost, then I think your situation would be the same as the situation at a conference. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question on GPL compliance
Michael Poole wrote: I would distinguish that case by the cost. If your web site has a checkbox that the user can check to receive the source CD at no additional cost, then I think your situation would be the same as the situation at a conference. At the conference I would be giving the sources CD for the cost of the media ($2). Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question on GPL compliance
Daniel Carrera writes: Michael Poole wrote: I would distinguish that case by the cost. If your web site has a checkbox that the user can check to receive the source CD at no additional cost, then I think your situation would be the same as the situation at a conference. At the conference I would be giving the sources CD for the cost of the media ($2). The GPL only explicitly permits this for the three-year written offer case. Perhaps suggest that GPLv3 allow it? Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question on GPL compliance
On 1/19/06, Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Alright, thanks. I guess we'll ship two CDs then. I am very risk adverse and I don't want to worry about the sources. Even if you feel under obligation to do what the GPL decrees, your customers can of course make a promise not to come back to you later asking for CDs with sources when they expressly don't want that accompanied CD. regards, alexander.
Re: Question on GPL compliance
Michael Poole wrote: The GPL only explicitly permits this for the three-year written offer case. Perhaps suggest that GPLv3 allow it? The three year offer is precisely what I'm trying to avoid. I don't know where I'll be in three years, and I don't want to worry about being able to provide sources for a CD I gave or sold 3 years before whose contents I wouldn't remember. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ \/_/I am not over-weight, I am under-tall. / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3 Draft
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au 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 my 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). That is not how the court ruled in MPAA v. 2600. 2600 was not circumventing copy protection, they were circumventing the encryption. If the DVD CCA had disallowed software implementations and used any of the algorithms implemented in GPG, they would have had a much more effective technological protection measure. Cheers, Walter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 Hrrm. We need a different clause then. No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work, shall require the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in order to gain access to that work. Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a technological measure which effectively controls access to any work. Think that will do it? The point here is that the authority of the copyright owner cannot be enforced technologically, only legally. So this doesn't actually impose any restrictions on the content of the program, and it's true. (The program can still require the application of information, or a process or a treatment, but can't require the authority of the copyright owner). (Incidentally, the DMCA text makes me think of South Park: respect my authoriteh!) We need to see the clauses from countries with similar DMCA-like laws to successfully eviscerate them as well. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question on GPL compliance
Michael Poole wrote: The GPL only explicitly permits this for the three-year written offer case. Perhaps suggest that GPLv3 allow it? I agree with Daniel that it would be sensible to permit this, and I've actually made this suggestion already on their rather cool commenting webtool. Here's the thread if anyone wants to chip in: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?id=201 Gerv -- 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)
Nathanael Nerode wrote: 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. I like this, together with Arnoud's suggestions. But Walter is right; the devil is in the detail of defining user. In order for the clause to maintain the market in addon clauses which the FSF has talked about, you have to leave it up to the specific clause to define where the line is. And then debian-legal will have the lovely job of judging 27 different variants and deciding which ones are free. There's also a comment discussing potential revisions of this clause on their wiki-like thing. It has my suggestion in, which is along the same lines, but I like yours better. http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?id=204 I think it's inevitable that, whatever this clause ends up like, it'll be possible to write a non-free additional term with it. But we can at least get it phrased in a way which makes it possible to, and encourages people to write free terms. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
Nathanael Nerode wrote: No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work, shall require the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in order to gain access to that work. I'm not sure how a program _can_ require authority of a copyright holder? Did you mean The exercise of the rights granted under this License shall not require the authority...? Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a technological measure which effectively controls access to any work. That reads like a statement of fact, and you can debate whether it is true in the general case. GPG is in fact an effective measure to control access to any work. Lawyers usually say is deemed to be, so maybe you can write it as something like The copyright holder considers/deems no program licensed under this License to be... We need to see the clauses from countries with similar DMCA-like laws to successfully eviscerate them as well. They all came from the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, so the wording will be largely the same everywhere. Here's the EU Copyright Directive: Linkname: European Union Final Directive on Copyright URL: http://cryptome.org/eu-copyright.htm There they use acts which are not authorised by the copyright holder. 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: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:46:52PM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote: What is it you need to get rid of trolls? Fire? A billy goat gruff, if I remember my mythology correctly. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Moglen's all good faith
Hey legals, enjoy Moglen speaking on one-way street, linking, etc. http://news.com.com/Defender+of+the+GPL/2008-1082_3-6028495.html Now, One specific area where the linking question arises is in the Linux kernel, where proprietary video drivers loaded are loaded as modules. Another one might be the use of a network driver that relies on proprietary firmware that is loaded from an operating system. (Such firmware, sometimes called blobs, are strings of hexadecimal digits loaded from the operating system kernel into the hardware device to enable it to run.) Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't link drivers which were proprietary in their license terms. I just wonder under what impure GPL license terms do you think Moglen thinks the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception for user space). Any thoughts? TIA. regards, alexander.
Re: GR: GFDL Position Statement
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:32:48 +0100 Gerfried Fuchs wrote: [...] * Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [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 think every work of authorship needs to be Free Software (at least to be suitable for Debian main). I can understand that the source for those things might be tricky, Not so much. The preferred form for modification definition of source code found in the GPL is flexible enough to be applied to these cases as well. but often images are flattened photoshop files or (with non-free tools) rendered graphics, or music converted midi files. See? It's not so difficult... 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. I think it should be moved to contrib and graphics should be rerendered from its actual source at build time. Consider this: if I wanted to fork xblast by modifying the graphics, I would need the povray source (and the povray program, which is unfortunately non-free). Every attempt to change (for example) the camera positioning would from hard to nearly impossible without povray source files. Hence, the preferred form for making modification to xblast graphics is the corresponding povray files (unless they are on their turn automatically generated from something else...). 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. Our beloved Debian logos are non-free. The issue is being worked on (at least I hope it's still: very little news has come to my ears recently...). This is one of my pet issues and it's one of the most difficult: it involves both copyright and trademark considerations... 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. There were, but now I haven't enough time to dig the archives... Sorry. -- :-( 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 pgpcpwjAtYFKh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hrrm. We need a different clause then. No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work, shall require the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in order to gain access to that work. This is too broad. If I have a machine on the internet which is secured using GPL'd programs, I certainly do not give anyone and everyone the legal authority to see what is on the machine. That is the basic problem with these anti-DRM clauses: differentiating between DRM and legitimate privacy controls is basically impossible. Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a technological measure which effectively controls access to any work. Again, writing this sentence into the license doesn't make it true. It is decided by external factors, such as whether the people implementing the scheme know how to do decent crypto. Cheers, Walter Landry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3 Draft
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 07:53:46AM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: 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; This doesn't even make sense. If a measure effectively controls access to a work, it's not possible to create technology to bypass it; conversely, if it's possible to bypass a control measure, then it is, by definition, ineffective. GPG is effective because it can't be reasonably bypassed; if someone successfully wrote a program to decrypt its files, then it would obviously no longer be effective. (Of course, laws and courts have free reign to interpret words in any way that suits their agenda, so effectively probably really means pretends to ...) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3 Draft
On 1/19/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] (Of course, laws and courts have free reign to interpret words in any way that suits their agenda, so effectively probably really means pretends to ...) It meansin effect here. regards, alexander.
Re: GR: GFDL Position Statement
Francesco Poli wrote: On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:32:48 +0100 Gerfried Fuchs wrote: * Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2006-01-18 11:01]: 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. I think it should be moved to contrib and graphics should be rerendered from its actual source at build time. Consider this: if I wanted to fork xblast by modifying the graphics, I would need the povray source (and the povray program, which is unfortunately non-free). Every attempt to change (for example) the camera positioning would from hard to nearly impossible without povray source files. Hence, the preferred form for making modification to xblast graphics is the corresponding povray files (unless they are on their turn automatically generated from something else...). One useful point here is that there exist Free renderers for POVRay files, such as KPovModeler. I don't know to what extent they implement the features of POVRay. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Moglen's all good faith
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey legals, enjoy Moglen speaking on one-way street, linking, etc. http://news.com.com/Defender+of+the+GPL/2008-1082_3-6028495.html Now, One specific area where the linking question arises is in the Linux kernel, where proprietary video drivers loaded are loaded as modules. Another one might be the use of a network driver that relies on proprietary firmware that is loaded from an operating system. (Such firmware, sometimes called blobs, are strings of hexadecimal digits loaded from the operating system kernel into the hardware device to enable it to run.) Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't link drivers which were proprietary in their license terms. I just wonder under what impure GPL license terms do you think Moglen thinks the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception for user space). Any thoughts? Perhaps this: Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. Besides, I'm free to insert whatever modules I want in my kernel, so long as I don't distribute /proc/kcore. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:58:08PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a technological measure which effectively controls access to any work. Again, writing this sentence into the license doesn't make it true. It is decided by external factors, such as whether the people implementing the scheme know how to do decent crypto. There seems to be some rift between the law and reality, though. If the law is taken literally, it's a no-op: it forbids writing software that can't be written (if you write software for an effective protection scheme, then, well, it's not effective). If the law is being enforced anyway (which it is, of course), then it's being interpreted to mean something a little different--where effective means something other than what it does in English. In that case, anti-DRM clauses, and evaluations of their potential effectiveness, need to be done while under the influence of the courts' private version of the language. (Unfortunately, I don't speak that language ...) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Moglen's all good faith
On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't link drivers which were proprietary in their license terms. I just wonder under what impure GPL license terms do you think Moglen thinks the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception for user space). Any thoughts? Perhaps this: Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. And how does that make it impure GPL? Permission to relicense under revised later versions is not part of the GPL license terms. regards, alexander.
Re: Moglen's all good faith
There are some (bad) parts in the linux kernel that are not GPL, and even some parts which could be considered non-free. Look through the individual file copyright notices. andrew On 1/20/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't link drivers which were proprietary in their license terms. I just wonder under what impure GPL license terms do you think Moglen thinks the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception for user space). Any thoughts? Perhaps this: Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. And how does that make it impure GPL? Permission to relicense under revised later versions is not part of the GPL license terms. 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
Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
On 1/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There seems to be some rift between the law and reality, though. If the law is taken literally, it's a no-op: it forbids writing software that can't be written (if you write software for an effective protection scheme, then, well, it's not effective). If the law is being enforced anyway (which it is, of course), then it's being interpreted to mean something a little different--where effective means something other than what it does in English. In that case, anti-DRM clauses, and evaluations of their potential effectiveness, need to be done while under the influence of the courts' private version of the language. What about a clause which says 'designed to be' rather than 'effective'? Because GnuPG is an effective TPM, but it is designed as a personal privacy program rather than a copyright enforcement program. andrew -- 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
Re: GPL v3 Draft
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 11:52:43PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: Eben had a really humorous explanation, which I will attempt to paraphrase from my (impressively imperfect) memory: No lawyer knows exactly why we have been shouting at eachother for the past 50(?) years; but since everyone is shouting, everyone thought there must be some reason. I've decided to take take the initiative and return to mixed case, ending the endless shouting match. FWIW, I just noticed on http://msdn.microsoft.com/archive/default.asp?url=/archive/en-us/dx8_vb/directx_vb/graphics_iface_vb_9202.asp a small warranty disclaimer that's not screaming: Archived content. No warranty is made as to technical accuracy. Content may contain URLs that were valid when originally published, but now link to sites or pages that no longer exist. However--and this may be significant--the text is colored red. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
On 1/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] (Unfortunately, I don't speak that language ...) Hey legals, drop this link http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=effectively to poor Maynard. regards, alexander.
Re: Moglen's all good faith
On 1/20/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are some (bad) parts in the linux kernel that are not GPL, and even some parts which could be considered non-free. Look through the individual file copyright notices. Sorry, but under Moglen's own theory, it is enough to have a tiny piece of GNU GPL'd code to make the entire program (in this case kernel as a whole, user space aside for a moment [RMS includes that as well]) GNU GPL'd. And, BTW, how come that the FSF's compliance lab didn't purify the kernel of *GNU*/Linux? regards, alexander.
Re: Moglen's all good faith
On 1/20/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/20/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are some (bad) parts in the linux kernel that are not GPL, and even some parts which could be considered non-free. Look through the individual file copyright notices. Sorry, but under Moglen's own theory, it is enough to have a tiny piece of GNU GPL'd code to make the entire program (in this case kernel as a whole, user space aside for a moment [RMS includes that as well]) Yes. GNU GPL'd. And, BTW, how come that the FSF's compliance lab didn't purify the kernel of *GNU*/Linux? Because FSF doesn't own any copyrights in Linux - it doesn't contribute. andrew -- 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
Re: GR: GFDL Position Statement
Umm, Kpovmodeler isn't a renderer, it's a modelling program that calls POVRay to actually render it. So KPovModeler should be in contrib. Andrew On 1/20/06, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:32:48 +0100 Gerfried Fuchs wrote: * Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2006-01-18 11:01]: 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. I think it should be moved to contrib and graphics should be rerendered from its actual source at build time. Consider this: if I wanted to fork xblast by modifying the graphics, I would need the povray source (and the povray program, which is unfortunately non-free). Every attempt to change (for example) the camera positioning would from hard to nearly impossible without povray source files. Hence, the preferred form for making modification to xblast graphics is the corresponding povray files (unless they are on their turn automatically generated from something else...). One useful point here is that there exist Free renderers for POVRay files, such as KPovModeler. I don't know to what extent they implement the features of POVRay. - Josh Triplett -- 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
Re: Moglen's all good faith
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't link drivers which were proprietary in their license terms. I just wonder under what impure GPL license terms do you think Moglen thinks the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception for user space). Any thoughts? Perhaps this: Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. And how does that make it impure GPL? Permission to relicense under revised later versions is not part of the GPL license terms. Are we talking about what makes sense, or about what Mr Moglen says? -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Moglen's all good faith
On 1/20/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] GNU GPL'd. And, BTW, how come that the FSF's compliance lab didn't purify the kernel of *GNU*/Linux? Because FSF doesn't own any copyrights in Linux - it doesn't contribute. Well, quote author=Moglen The Foundation notes that despite the alarmist statements SCO's employees have made, the Foundation has not been sued, nor has SCO, despite our requests, identified any work whose copyright the Foundation holds-including all of IBM's modifications to the kernel for use with IBM's S/390 mainframe computers, assigned to the Foundation by IBM--that SCO asserts infringes its rights in any way. /quote So how come that the FSF's compliance lab didn't purify the kernel of *GNU*/Linux for IBM mainframes at least? regards, alexander.
Re: Moglen's all good faith
Alexander Terekhov said on Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 02:33:08AM +0100,: On 1/20/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] GNU GPL'd. And, BTW, how come that the FSF's compliance lab didn't purify the kernel of *GNU*/Linux? Because FSF doesn't own any copyrights in Linux - it doesn't contribute. Well, quote author=Moglen The Foundation notes that despite the alarmist statements SCO's employees have made, the Foundation has not been sued, nor has SCO, despite our requests, identified any work whose copyright the Foundation holds-including all of IBM's modifications to the kernel for use with IBM's S/390 mainframe computers, assigned to the Foundation by IBM--that SCO asserts infringes its rights in any way. /quote So how come that the FSF's compliance lab didn't purify the kernel of *GNU*/Linux for IBM mainframes at least? 1. That still does not make FSF the owner of the whole linux kernel; only those parts which have been assigned to the FSF are owned by the FSF. 2. The linux is not a GNU project and that is why we call it the linux kernel; and the GNU/Linux operating system, else we would have been calling it GNU Linux; (like GNU Bash and GNU readline and whatever) 3. FSF's ownership of parts of the kernel means FSF is one of the copyright holders in the collective work called the linux kernel. BTW, if you have problems with statements made by Eben Moglen, you might be better off clarifying things with him direct rather than on this list. -- Mahesh T. Pai -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: GFDL Position Statement
Andrew Donnellan wrote: Umm, Kpovmodeler isn't a renderer, it's a modelling program that calls POVRay to actually render it. So KPovModeler should be in contrib. Hmmm. The description certainly didn't give that indication, nor did the fact that povray was only in Suggests. If it has no functionality without povray, I agree that it should be in contrib; if it can be useful without povray, the current situation is fine. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
