Packages containing RFCs
Hi all! I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I believe are licensed under a non-free license, so I filed bug #364860. Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large, and better than I would expect. Should we file bug reports for these packages, or is there a better way to handle this? What severity should I use? Some additional filtering should probably be done, some earlier RFC are (I believe) in the public domain. Thanks, Simon usr/lib/GNUstep/System/Library/Documentation/Developer/rfc1459.txt [84]libs/gnu usr/share/doc/araneida/doc/rfc2388.txt.gz [148]web/araneida usr/share/doc/araneida/doc/rfc2616.txt.gz [149]web/araneida usr/share/doc/camstream-doc/tech/rfc959.txt.gz [161]doc/camstream- usr/share/doc/cl-aserve/rfc2396.txt.gz [162]web/cl-aserve usr/share/doc/cl-irc/doc/rfc2810.txt.gz [163]devel/cl-irc usr/share/doc/cl-irc/doc/rfc2811.txt.gz [164]devel/cl-irc usr/share/doc/cl-irc/doc/rfc2812.txt.gz [165]devel/cl-irc usr/share/doc/cl-irc/doc/rfc2813.txt.gz [166]devel/cl-irc usr/share/doc/dhcp3-common/doc/rfc1542.txt.gz [173]net/dhcp3-comm usr/share/doc/dhcp3-common/doc/rfc2131.txt.gz [174]net/dhcp3-comm usr/share/doc/dhcp3-common/doc/rfc2132.txt.gz [175]net/dhcp3-comm usr/share/doc/dhcp3-common/doc/rfc2485.txt.gz [176]net/dhcp3-comm usr/share/doc/dhcp3-common/doc/rfc2489.txt.gz [177]net/dhcp3-comm usr/share/doc/dhcp3-common/doc/rfc951.txt.gz[178]net/dhcp3-comm usr/share/doc/erlang-doc-html/html/lib/megaco-3.0.1/doc/standard/rfc3015.txt.gz usr/share/doc/freeradius/rfc/rfc1157.txt.gz [195]net/freeradius usr/share/doc/freeradius/rfc/rfc1227.txt.gz [196]net/freeradius usr/share/doc/freeradius/rfc/rfc1448.txt.gz [197]net/freeradius usr/share/doc/freeradius/rfc/rfc1901.txt.gz [198]net/freeradius usr/share/doc/freeradius/rfc/rfc1905.txt.gz [199]net/freeradius usr/share/doc/freeradius/rfc/rfc2058.txt.gz [200]net/freeradius usr/share/doc/freeradius/rfc/rfc2059.txt.gz [201]net/freeradius usr/share/doc/freeradius/rfc/rfc2138.txt.gz [202]net/freeradius usr/share/doc/freeradius/rfc/rfc2139.txt.gz [203]net/freeradius usr/share/doc/heimdal-docs/standardisation/rfc1508.txt.gz [205]net/heimdal-do usr/share/doc/heimdal-docs/standardisation/rfc1509.txt.gz [206]net/heimdal-do usr/share/doc/heimdal-docs/standardisation/rfc1510.txt.gz [207]net/heimdal-do usr/share/doc/heimdal-docs/standardisation/rfc1750.txt.gz [208]net/heimdal-do usr/share/doc/heimdal-docs/standardisation/rfc1831.txt.gz [209]net/heimdal-do usr/share/doc/heimdal-docs/standardisation/rfc1964.txt.gz [210]net/heimdal-do usr/share/doc/heimdal-docs/standardisation/rfc2078.txt.gz [211]net/heimdal-do usr/share/doc/heimdal-docs/standardisation/rfc2203.txt.gz [212]net/heimdal-do usr/share/doc/heimdal-docs/standardisation/rfc2228.txt.gz [213]net/heimdal-do usr/share/doc/heimdal-docs/standardisation/rfc2478.txt.gz [214]net/heimdal-do usr/share/doc/heimdal-docs/standardisation/rfc2743.txt.gz [215]net/heimdal-do usr/share/doc/heimdal-docs/standardisation/rfc2744.txt.gz [216]net/heimdal-do usr/share/doc/heimdal-docs/standardisation/rfc3244.txt.gz [217]net/heimdal-do usr/share/doc/heimdal-docs/standardisation/rfc3961.txt.gz [218]net/heimdal-do usr/share/doc/heimdal-docs/standardisation/rfc3962.txt.gz [219]net/heimdal-do usr/share/doc/ircd-irc2/rfc1459.txt.gz [221]net/ircd-irc2 usr/share/doc/ircd-irc2/rfc2810.txt.gz [222]net/ircd-irc2 usr/share/doc/ircd-irc2/rfc2811.txt.gz [223]net/ircd-irc2 usr/share/doc/ircd-irc2/rfc2812.txt.gz [224]net/ircd-irc2 usr/share/doc/ircd-irc2/rfc2813.txt.gz [225]net/ircd-irc2 usr/share/doc/ircd-ircu/rfc1413.txt.gz [226]net/ircd-ircu usr/share/doc/lksctp-tools-doc/rfc2960.txt.gz [357]doc/lksctp-too usr/share/doc/lksctp-tools-doc/rfc3257.txt.gz [358]doc/lksctp-too usr/share/doc/lksctp-tools-doc/rfc3286.txt.gz [359]doc/lksctp-too usr/share/doc/lksctp-tools-doc/rfc3309.txt.gz [360]doc/lksctp-too usr/share/doc/lksctp-tools-doc/rfc3554.txt.gz [361]doc/lksctp-too usr/share/doc/lksctp-tools-doc/rfc3758.txt.gz [362]doc/lksctp-too usr/share/doc/messagewall/rfc2045.txt.gz[373]mail/messagewa usr/share/doc/messagewall/rfc2046.txt.gz[374]mail/messagewa usr/share/doc/messagewall/rfc2554.txt.gz[375]mail/messagewa usr/share/doc/messagewall/rfc2595.txt.gz
Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
Hi! I've been asked by the debian release team to look into this bug and see what can be done to have a successful resolution... The situation seems to be this one: 1) maxdb-doc is a package which contains some GPL licensed html manual files 2) the GPL asks for the source code (defined as: preferred form of the work for making modifications to it) to be available 3) the html files are determined to be automatically generated by a tool called SAP Html Export, and the files which originate them are not available This seems to be a problem only because the GPL is used... Would the files be under a less restrictive licence we would be perfectly OK distributing them as is... I'm addressing this mail to the debian-legal list too for a consultation about whether they think this package is distributable at all or not as is, and what would they recommend... Regards, and thanks! Guido -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
Guido Trotter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! I've been asked by the debian release team to look into this bug and see what can be done to have a successful resolution... The situation seems to be this one: 1) maxdb-doc is a package which contains some GPL licensed html manual files 2) the GPL asks for the source code (defined as: preferred form of the work for making modifications to it) to be available 3) the html files are determined to be automatically generated by a tool called SAP Html Export, and the files which originate them are not available This sounds like as if the content was in some weird format before, maybe a database with SAP frontend? If this is true, the first thing you'd do if you want to maintain *and* distribute the content as part of some software would be to export it from that database. Not only because the database is non-free, but also because it doesn't seem like a preferred form of modification if you want to edit documentation, and if you want it to be packaged in a tar.gz. If this is true, I don't see why this is necessarily missing source. Where the files exported a long time ago, and are now maintained as html files? Or are they newly exported every release? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Packages containing RFCs
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large, and better than I would expect. Should we file bug reports for these packages, or is there a better way to handle this? What severity should I use? I think you should file bug reports, but I think you should ask a wider or higher audience (maybe -devel or -release) before mass-filing. Most of those bugs look serious (debian-policy s2.1+2.2) to me. I can't remember if anyone is coordinating [NONFREE-DOC] bugs. -- 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: Packages containing RFCs
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large, and better than I would expect. Should we file bug reports for these packages, or is there a better way to handle this? What severity should I use? I think you should file bug reports, but I think you should ask a wider or higher audience (maybe -devel or -release) before mass-filing. Most of those bugs look serious (debian-policy s2.1+2.2) to me. I can't remember if anyone is coordinating [NONFREE-DOC] bugs. There's already been bugs filed about this in the past.. I'm not sure where they ended up but, fe: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=199810 Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Packages containing RFCs
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:32:30AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: Hi all! I just noticed that heimdal-docs contained copies of RFCs, which I believe are licensed under a non-free license, so I filed bug #364860. Then I looked at what other packages in testing may have the same problem, and the list below is what I found. It is not that large, and better than I would expect. Should we file bug reports for these packages, or is there a better way to handle this? What severity should I use? Some additional filtering should probably be done, some earlier RFC are (I believe) in the public domain. I *swear* that one of the project documents said something highly relevant, to the effect of nonfree material might be included in a package in `main' if it is well-separated, and not required for the operation of the package. I can't find it, so I'd appreciate it if someone would point it out to me .. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that it made explicit mention of RFCs and some humour files included with emacs. Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tremulous packages
Hi list, I ITP Tremulous for Debian (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=363581) and have some license concerns. I have one source package and three binary packages : tremulous, tremulous-data and tremulous-server Here are the licenses : - The main code is GPL : no problem - The datas are CC-share-alike : non-free. They intend to relicense them to CC 2.5+ then CC 3 when it will be out though, which will make them debian-free. - There is a not-free-at-all media license exception, but the author agreed to change the license to CC as the other medias. He wrote an email to the Tremulous maintainer for this, so I think it's ok to say it's CC right now. The new relicensing is not included in my source archive, but as he gave his agreement, I think I can just remove this exception from the license file in my archive. - There are some tools needed to compile some of the sources. Here is their license : The authors of this software are Christopher W. Fraser and David R. Hanson. Copyright (c) 1991,1992,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998 by ATT, Christopher W. Fraser, and David R. Hanson. All Rights Reserved. Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose, subject to the provisions described below, without fee is hereby granted, provided that this entire notice is included in all copies of any software that is or includes a copy or modification of this software and in all copies of the supporting documentation for such software. THIS SOFTWARE IS BEING PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY. IN PARTICULAR, NEITHER THE AUTHORS NOR ATT MAKE ANY REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE MERCHANTABILITY OF THIS SOFTWARE OR ITS FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. lcc is not public-domain software, shareware, and it is not protected by a `copyleft' agreement, like the code from the Free Software Foundation. lcc is available free for your personal research and instructional use under the `fair use' provisions of the copyright law. You may, however, redistribute lcc in whole or in part provided you acknowledge its source and include this CPYRIGHT file. You may, for example, include the distribution in a CDROM of free software, provided you charge only for the media, or mirror the distribution files at your site. You may not sell lcc or any product derived from it in which it is a significant part of the value of the product. Using the lcc front end to build a C syntax checker is an example of this kind of product. You may use parts of lcc in products as long as you charge for only those components that are entirely your own and you acknowledge the use of lcc clearly in all product documentation and distribution media. You must state clearly that your product uses or is based on parts of lcc and that lcc is available free of charge. You must also request that bug reports on your product be reported to you. Using the lcc front end to build a C compiler for the Motorola 88000 chip and charging for and distributing only the 88000 code generator is an example of this kind of product. Using parts of lcc in other products is more problematic. For example, using parts of lcc in a C++ compiler could save substantial time and effort and therefore contribute significantly to the profitability of the product. This kind of use, or any use where others stand to make a profit from what is primarily our work, requires a license agreement with Addison-Wesley. Per-copy and unlimited use licenses are available; for more information, contact J. Carter Shanklin Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. 2725 Sand Hill Rd. Menlo Park, CA 94025 - Chris Fraser / [EMAIL PROTECTED] David Hanson / [EMAIL PROTECTED] $Revision: 145 $ $Date: 2001-10-17 16:53:10 -0500 (Wed, 17 Oct 2001) $ The parts about not being able to sell it are non-free, I think. I don't intend to package them, but i have to include them in the source package. The Makefile, called by the rules file, builds them and then uses them to build the game. As they don't appear in the binary package, I don't know if it makes the whole non-free of not. As I have a single source package, and the datas are it in, is it right to put the other packages in contrib (if the tools consideration permits it) or do I have to make a separate source package for the datas (and for the tools maybe) ? Thanks -- Heretik [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Guido Trotter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! I've been asked by the debian release team to look into this bug and see what can be done to have a successful resolution... The situation seems to be this one: 1) maxdb-doc is a package which contains some GPL licensed html manual files 2) the GPL asks for the source code (defined as: preferred form of the work for making modifications to it) to be available 3) the html files are determined to be automatically generated by a tool called SAP Html Export, and the files which originate them are not available This sounds like as if the content was in some weird format before, maybe a database with SAP frontend? If this is true, the first thing you'd do if you want to maintain *and* distribute the content as part of some software would be to export it from that database. Not only because the database is non-free, but also because it doesn't seem like a preferred form of modification if you want to edit documentation, and if you want it to be packaged in a tar.gz. If this is true, I don't see why this is necessarily missing source. Where the files exported a long time ago, and are now maintained as html files? Or are they newly exported every release? It looks like these files are exported from SAP KW, which is an enterprise-level content delivery system. Based on a leaked (and poorly redacted) peice of documentation, it appears that documentation is actually written and maintained in MS word format. However, that is the version in which the document is edited. Normally people access the documents online in an html format (automaticly regenerated from the word document). The documents can also be exported to HTML. That is likely what MySQL AB does to create their doc packages. So the real source is a Microsoft Word docuement. However, I suspect Debian users would normally prefer to edit HTML files, than MS Word Documents. It is also entirely possible that the files are really HTML to begin with, so the real difference between the source and distibuted versions would be that comment. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tremulous packages
Heretik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi list, I ITP Tremulous for Debian (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=363581) and have some license concerns. I have one source package and three binary packages : tremulous, tremulous-data and tremulous-server Here are the licenses : - The main code is GPL : no problem - The datas are CC-share-alike : non-free. They intend to relicense them to CC 2.5+ then CC 3 when it will be out though, which will make them debian-free. - There is a not-free-at-all media license exception, but the author agreed to change the license to CC as the other medias. He wrote an email to the Tremulous maintainer for this, so I think it's ok to say it's CC right now. The new relicensing is not included in my source archive, but as he gave his agreement, I think I can just remove this exception from the license file in my archive. A simple clarification from the copyright holders that they will not be enforcing any of the problematic clauses, along with the promise to upgrade to the newer versions of CC when possible should qualify them as free. (We let Mozilla get away with this durring the tre-licencing). So simply get the clarification. - There are some tools needed to compile some of the sources. Here is their license : [Snip] The parts about not being able to sell it are non-free, I think. I don't intend to package them, but i have to include them in the source package. The Makefile, called by the rules file, builds them and then uses them to build the game. As they don't appear in the binary package, I don't know if it makes the whole non-free of not. That licence is intended to be FSF-free, but it is clearly not DFSG-free. If even one component of the source package is non-free then the binaries are non-free. The only way to get arround this is to use non-pristine sources, or split the sources. Since the game build-depends on non-free stuff then it could only be in contrib, unless somebody writes free replacements for the utilities. As I have a single source package, and the datas are it in, is it right to put the other packages in contrib (if the tools consideration permits it) or do I have to make a separate source package for the datas (and for the tools maybe) ? Get the copyright clarifications and then split the source into two: * Game + Data (CONTRIB) [This would generate the main binaries] * Build-stuff (NON-FREE) [This would build (a) package(s) for the non-free utils, which the Contrib packages would build-depend on). If you can get upstream to replace the problematic build tools with free ones, then you will be able to transition the game into main. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:59:27 -0400 Joe Smith wrote: So the real source is a Microsoft Word docuement. However, I suspect Debian users would normally prefer to edit HTML files, than MS Word Documents. I certainly prefer manually-edited (X)HTML to MS Word Doc, but I don't know if I would prefer *machine-generated* HTML. It would depend on how clean is the result (more like Tidy-reformatted HTML or more like MS-FrontPage-generated mess?). At any rate, there are many Debian users that don't know HTML syntax *and* that happily use OpenOffice.org, so I wouldn't be so sure that 'Debian users would normally prefer to edit HTML files, than MS Word Documents'. Moreover I think that the preferences of people who actually make modifications to the work are to be taken into account, not the ones of those who may perhaps want to modify it, possibly... If a recipient wants to change the source form, he/she is free to generate the desired form from the previously distributed source. To summarize, I think that, if those documents are actually modified in MS Word Doc format by their actual maintainers, then their source code is really in MS Word Doc format. If those documents are released sourceless under the GPL, we cannot distribute them without violating their copyright. I recommend contacting upstream and asking for clarification on which format is used to modify the documents. If that form is not available, I recommend asking upstream to release it. Hope this helps. -- :-( 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 pgp491bJT63fG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
Guido Trotter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! I've been asked by the debian release team to look into this bug and see what can be done to have a successful resolution... The situation seems to be this one: 1) maxdb-doc is a package which contains some GPL licensed html manual files 2) the GPL asks for the source code (defined as: preferred form of the work for making modifications to it) to be available 3) the html files are determined to be automatically generated by a tool called SAP Html Export, and the files which originate them are not available This seems to be a problem only because the GPL is used... Would the files be under a less restrictive licence we would be perfectly OK distributing them as is... Sort of. Debian requires source for everything that it distributes in main. If it were not GPL'd, it would still have to go into non-free. I'm addressing this mail to the debian-legal list too for a consultation about whether they think this package is distributable at all or not as is, and what would they recommend... As is, it is not distributable. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AW: Bug#346354: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
Hi, This seems to be a problem only because the GPL is used... Would the files be under a less restrictive licence we would be perfectly OK distributing them as is... Sort of. Debian requires source for everything that it distributes in main. If it were not GPL'd, it would still have to go into non-free. I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are Microsoft Word documents and that those will not be distributed. Does the mean that the maxdb-doc package will have to be pulled from the repository? Best wishes, Martin. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
