Re: Problematic distribution of P2P clients in France

[Florian Weimer]

* MJ Ray:

> I thought French law was a code and did not rely so much on case
> rulings by courts. Have I misunderstood?

Lawmakers generally do not resolve all conflicts.  The remaining ones
result in ambiguities, which need to be sorted out by the courts. 8-(
Even if you rely largely on codified law.


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

Re: MPL and Source Code

[Josh Triplett]

Craig Southeren wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:18:34 -0700
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think the Debian CVS/SVN server meets the definition and would most
>> likely satisfy the license, though it could potentially cause problems
>> for our mirror operators.  
> 
> I don't see why.

Because they then depend on us to continue providing source, rather than
mirroring it themselves.

>> I think you have successfully argued that we can satisfy this
>> requirement of the license, and thus we could probably legally
>> distribute MPLed software; however, distributability only gets you as
>> far as the non-free archive.
> 
> Given that the Debian definition of free basically means "GPL compatible",
> I never really expected anything else :)

No, it doesn't.  Debian's definition of Free provides considerably more
leeway than GPL-compatibility.

- Josh Triplett



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [pkg-kolab] license of schema files

[Simon Josefsson]

Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Noèl Köthe wrote:
>> "document itself may not be modified in any way" is the main point.
>> The following are examples and more information. It looks like its
>> just a copy of a RFC license e.g.
>> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2821.txt
>
> The copyright statement prohibits changing the RFC document but you are 
> allowed to take portions thereof "without restriction" for the purpose 
> of implementing the specification contained in the document.

Note that the author of RFC 2026 (which include the old IETF copying
conditions, that RFC 2821 use) disagree with the interpretation that
the license permit this usage.  See the IPR WG mailing list archive.

I and others disagree with his interpretation, but the point is that
the situation is not that clear.

> So you cannot ship a copy of rfc2821.txt in a DFSG-compliant package
> but you can extract and alter the schema contained therein.

I'm not sure this is true.

Regards,
Simon


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

Re: [pkg-kolab] license of schema files

[Peter Eisentraut]

Noèl Köthe wrote:
> "document itself may not be modified in any way" is the main point.
> The following are examples and more information. It looks like its
> just a copy of a RFC license e.g.
> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2821.txt

The copyright statement prohibits changing the RFC document but you are 
allowed to take portions thereof "without restriction" for the purpose 
of implementing the specification contained in the document.  So you 
cannot ship a copy of rfc2821.txt in a DFSG-compliant package but you 
can extract and alter the schema contained therein.

Of course, there is an unidentifiable crossing point between taking a 
portion of the document for creating an implementation of the 
specification on the one hand, and taking the entire document on the 
other hand.  But it is in my mind completely beyond doubt that the case 
at hand here is on the former side.

If you are really unsure about it, you find someone who has never seen 
the schema in the RFC document and you give him a verbal description of 
the specification and have him write down a schema for it.  Then you 
are completely beyond the copyright claims of the RFC/IETF.


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

Re: MPL and Source Code

[Frank Küster]

Craig Southeren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 12:42:49 +0300
> Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:29:37PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
>> > On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:18:34 -0700
>> > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> > > I think you have successfully argued that we can satisfy this
>> > > requirement of the license, and thus we could probably legally
>> > > distribute MPLed software; however, distributability only gets you as
>> > > far as the non-free archive.
>> > 
>> > Given that the Debian definition of free basically means "GPL compatible",
>> > I never really expected anything else :)
>> 
>> GPL-compatible as in openssh and openssl?
>
> The modified BSD license is GPL compatible, isn't it? (I know the
> original BSD license isn't)

That doesn't matter.  GPL-compatibility or copyleft ist *not* a
requirement of the DFSG, not at all.

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

Re: MPL and Source Code

[Craig Southeren]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 12:42:49 +0300
Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:29:37PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
> > On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:18:34 -0700
> > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > > I think you have successfully argued that we can satisfy this
> > > requirement of the license, and thus we could probably legally
> > > distribute MPLed software; however, distributability only gets you as
> > > far as the non-free archive.
> > 
> > Given that the Debian definition of free basically means "GPL compatible",
> > I never really expected anything else :)
> 
> GPL-compatible as in openssh and openssl?

The modified BSD license is GPL compatible, isn't it? (I know the
original BSD license isn't)

> A number of other points were raised here. For instance, that in certain
> cases the MPL license would require you to change a specific file in the
> source-distribution itself (which kind of gets in the way of signed
> packages).

I think I missed that statement. Which file needs to be changed?

..deleted

   Craig

---
 Craig Southeren  Post Increment – VoIP Consulting and Software
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]   www.postincrement.com.au

 Phone:  +61 243654666  ICQ: #86852844
 Fax:+61 243673140  MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Mobile: +61 417231046  

 "It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile.
  Be yourself, no matter what they say."   Sting

Re: license of schema files

[Simon Josefsson]

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> c. maybe it rfc releated and need waiting for RFC license discussion (i
>> dont know the status of it)?
>
> The RFC copyright licence problems have been discussed. See
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/threads.html#00151
> for one possibly relevant thread (anyone got a better link?)

One is .

I'm participating in the IPR WG within IETF to try to change this.  As
part of this, it has been clarified that the copyright notice in RFC
is not really on the text in the RFC, but on auxilliary parts
(boilerplate) and the collective work formed by many people
participating in producing the document (in those cases where actually
many people participated).  See the following response from IETF's
lawyer:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg03729.html

I surveyed a couple of other source packages in Debian, and the ISOC
copyright and this license is present in some of them (e.g., the krb5
source package).

Perhaps we should start to look through all source packages, and
remove all traces of RFC material.

However, alternatively, you could ask the author of that RFC if he
would be willing to re-license the material under some other license.
He has the right to do this.  This is the procedure I'm following for
the Shishi packages, which uses the Kerberos V5 ASN.1 schema from RFC
4120.

If someone works in an organization that is active in the IETF,
getting them to participate in the discussion in the IPR WG, and talk
to the leadership in that area and explain that this is a serious
problem, that would be useful.

Regards,
Simon


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

Re: MPL and Source Code

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 07:29:37PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:18:34 -0700
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > I think you have successfully argued that we can satisfy this
> > requirement of the license, and thus we could probably legally
> > distribute MPLed software; however, distributability only gets you as
> > far as the non-free archive.
> 
> Given that the Debian definition of free basically means "GPL compatible",
> I never really expected anything else :)

GPL-compatible as in openssh and openssl?

A number of other points were raised here. For instance, that in certain
cases the MPL license would require you to change a specific file in the
source-distribution itself (which kind of gets in the way of signed
packages).
 
 Since this flame is only regarding the specific issue of keeping the
 source availble for one extra year, I gather that in all other points
 no difficulty was found?

Regards

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen  sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
icq#16849755   iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+972-50-7952406   
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.xorcom.com


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

Re: MPL and Source Code

[Craig Southeren]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:18:34 -0700
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

..deleted

> > 
> > The MPL states 12 months, and the GPL had three years (for certain
> > methods of distribution) but I don't know of any license that required
> > 100 years. I agree that any such period of time would be unfairly
> > onerous.
> 
> Quantitative points rarely make the difference between free and
> non-free.  If requiring source 100 years after you stop providing the
> binary would clearly classify a license as non-free, then generally so
> would 3 years or 1 year.

I guess it depends on your definition of free. But that's a whole
different argument :)

..deleted

> > Is there any disagreement as to whether this would apply?
> 
> I think the Debian CVS/SVN server meets the definition and would most
> likely satisfy the license, though it could potentially cause problems
> for our mirror operators.  

I don't see why.

> But the question of whether Debian can
> satisfy the license stands completely independent of whether Debian
> considers the license Free.  We can satisfy the licenses of every piece
> of software in non-free, or we couldn't legally distribute them.

Make sense.

> I think you have successfully argued that we can satisfy this
> requirement of the license, and thus we could probably legally
> distribute MPLed software; however, distributability only gets you as
> far as the non-free archive.

Given that the Debian definition of free basically means "GPL compatible",
I never really expected anything else :)

   Craig

---
 Craig Southeren  Post Increment – VoIP Consulting and Software
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]   www.postincrement.com.au

 Phone:  +61 243654666  ICQ: #86852844
 Fax:+61 243673140  MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Mobile: +61 417231046  

 "It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile.
  Be yourself, no matter what they say."   Sting

Re: license of schema files

[MJ Ray]

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?No=E8l_K=F6the?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> kolabd was rejected by ftpmaster because of this schema license text
[...]
> The text is the same like the one from core.schema from openldap2.2

That's really strange. How can one include 'Portions' of something
when forbidden to modify it in any way?

> Can anybody tell me what to do:
> a. include rfc2739.schema because its like core.schema?

Not without talking to ftpmaster, unless you like rejection.

> b. write a bug against openldap2.2 because they have the same problem?

Probably.

> c. maybe it rfc releated and need waiting for RFC license discussion (i
> dont know the status of it)?

The RFC copyright licence problems have been discussed. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/threads.html#00151
for one possibly relevant thread (anyone got a better link?)

> d. something else?

Find a way to avoid the copyright material and achieve the same
effect as using it.

Sorry there's no easy answers :-/
-- 
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: MPL and Source Code

[Josh Triplett]

Craig Southeren wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 23:13:32 -0400
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> Craig Southeren wrote:
>>> This means theoretically that the lifetime of a source release under the
>>> GPL is the same as a binary release. Once the binary is no longer
>>> distributed, then the source no longer has to be distributed either.
>>> As a user, the seems more than a little unreasonable, but if that's what
>>> the license says..
>>>
>>> The MPL requirement for 12 months seems quite reasonable, and I can't
>>> see that any packager (Debian included) would have a problem with
>>> meeting it.
>>>   
>> Well, first off, we have to set a boundary somewhere: While 1 year may 
>> seem reasonable, certainly 100 is not. Debian has chosen "for as long as 
>> the binary is being distributed" as our line between reasonable and 
>> unreasonable. There are several reasons that spring to mind:
> 
> Not sure where the 100 years came from - I certainly never proposed it! :)
> 
> The MPL states 12 months, and the GPL had three years (for certain
> methods of distribution) but I don't know of any license that required
> 100 years. I agree that any such period of time would be unfairly
> onerous.

Quantitative points rarely make the difference between free and
non-free.  If requiring source 100 years after you stop providing the
binary would clearly classify a license as non-free, then generally so
would 3 years or 1 year.

[snip Anthony's excellent practical arguments against requiring source
longer than binaries]

> I don't see that the MPL (or the GPL) requires that there are
> pre-packaged source packages available that correspond one-to-one basis
> for executable packages.

Most likely not, given sufficient care taken with the repository.

> As such, I think that the Debian CVS/SVN server meets the definition of
> electronic distribution for the terms of the MPL - provided that there
> are appropriate tags/revision markers available for each identified
> release, AND provided the revision control system is publically
> available, AND provided the revision control system contains all of the
> sources, AND provided historical revision information is not purged
> within 12 months of a release.
> 
> Is there is any reason why any of these requirements would not be met?
> 
> Is there any disagreement as to whether this would apply?

I think the Debian CVS/SVN server meets the definition and would most
likely satisfy the license, though it could potentially cause problems
for our mirror operators.  But the question of whether Debian can
satisfy the license stands completely independent of whether Debian
considers the license Free.  We can satisfy the licenses of every piece
of software in non-free, or we couldn't legally distribute them.

I think you have successfully argued that we can satisfy this
requirement of the license, and thus we could probably legally
distribute MPLed software; however, distributability only gets you as
far as the non-free archive.

- Josh Triplett




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature